Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
11:16 am
August 12, 2009
Offline
Unless there's an arsonist afoot… 
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
1:12 pm
January 9, 2010
Offline
Impish_Impulse said:Unless there's an arsonist afoot…
LOL – too funny!
But a good mystery to solve, once and for all would be the Princes in the Tower. They were, after all, Henry's uncles.
5:49 am
May 5, 2010
Offline
wreckmasterjay said:
I am totally obsessed with historical stuff, lost treasures, mysteries and anything that needs looking into basically. So…..does anyone know of anything that needs “investigating” and/or to find the truth on it.
I love working on things like that and would love a new mystery to solve. One such is the dissolution of the monastries and the rumour of hidden tunnels and even treasure that the monks spirited away in my home town of Bridlington. So far I have only uncovered more rumour but there is no smoke without fire right!
What about this one?
VINCERE VEL MORI
4:57 pm
March 12, 2010
Offline
Bella, I totally agree!
9:11 am
February 24, 2010
Offline
I would love to know who killed the Princes' in the Tower. Rchard III supposedly loved those boys. It's hard to believe he would have killed them. The Duke of Buckingham, on the other hand, would seem to be a likely candidate. It is a haunting mystery.
Allison's choice is a good one too, Jay and right up your alley.
4:20 am
December 30, 2009
Offline
If Richard III had the Princes killed, he went about it in the most cack-handed way! If he needed them dead (and that is debatable as they had been removed from the succession by Act of Parliament) they could have “died” of a fever and their bodies displayed and then decently buried. End of confusion regarding what happened to them and no reason for pretenders like Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck who later bothered H7.
On the other hand, when H7 won the Battle of Bosworth and became king, he ordered the Act of Parliament which removed the Princes from the succession repealed and destroyed unread. This automatically restored the boys to the succession, ahead of their eldest sister, Henry's soon to be queen.
So the question is – “Who needed to get rid of the Princes most – Richard or Henry?”
The other interesting question is why H7 did not accuse Richard of their murder in the Act of Attainder he had passed against Richard – only the general phrase “….the shedding of infants' blood……” was used. It was very many years later that H7 had the story of Sir James Tyrrell's killing them in the Tower publicised.
12:21 pm
August 12, 2009
Offline
Jasmine said:
On the other hand, when H7 won the Battle of Bosworth and became king, he ordered the Act of Parliament which removed the Princes from the succession repealed and destroyed unread. This automatically restored the boys to the succession, ahead of their eldest sister, Henry's soon to be queen.
So the question is – “Who needed to get rid of the Princes most – Richard or Henry?”
But why would H7 legitimize them and then kill them? Or kill them and then legitimize them and their sister? He was careful to claim the throne on his own merits, not his wife's.
I'd love to know what happened to them, but am not totally convinced by any of the theories put forward. I think Richard III had the most reason to want them dead. I'm intrigued (but not convinced) by the notion that H7 had them released under new identities into Thomas More's family, and that More's account of their murder by RIII was a smokescreen to hide the fact that they were alive. Maybe that was the choice H7 gave them and their sister: I'll let you live as long as you never threaten my throne. In return, I'll marry your sister and your family's blood will continue on the throne through our children. H7 wasn't known for being such a softy, but he and Elizabeth of York did truly love each other, so maybe it did happen that way. Who knows?
"Don't knock at death's door.
Ring the bell and run. He hates that."
12:44 am
December 30, 2009
Offline
I know that H7 claimed the throne by right of conquest and not in his wife's name, but he had promised to marry her before leaving France and made much of the idea of uniting the Red and White Roses. To do that H7 needed to marry a legitimate Princess of York, not a bastard of the King, so therefore he had to repeal the Titulus Regis (the Act of Parliament), this automatically made the Princes legitimate also and first in the line of succession. I guess he had it repealed and destroyed unread because he wanted people to forget as quickly as possible the grounds on which the children of E4 were made illegitimate. All copies but one were destroyed. If that one copy had not survived, we would never have known that Richard had a clear claim to the throne, made by Act of Parliament.
There is some weak evidence that Richard may have moved the Princes from the Tower as there are records for clothing for The Lord Bastard, later during his reign and some historians think this may be a reference to one of the Princes. Richard did move some of the other junior members of the Royal Family up to Yorkshire (the Earl of Warwick, etc) and it is possible the Princes went to.
I am interested as to why you think H7 and Elizabeth of York loved each other.
11:06 am
October 11, 2009
Offline
If Richard wanted to get rid of all the pretenders, hy didn't he killed his other nephew, George og Clarence's son? He had a better claim than him, being the only son of his elder brother. I know that the boy was a little simple-minded, but it never prevented anybody from becoming king, especially if he is manipulated. But Richard never hurted him, carind for him instead.
12:18 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Jasmine said:
There is some weak evidence that Richard may have moved the Princes from the Tower as there are records for clothing for The Lord Bastard, later during his reign and some historians think this may be a reference to one of the Princes. Richard did move some of the other junior members of the Royal Family up to Yorkshire (the Earl of Warwick, etc) and it is possible the Princes went to.
Richard may have moved the Prince's from the Tower, but these records for clothing may not have been for them. Richard had a bastard son, John Gloucester. The Lord Bastard could refer to this boy. Richard referred to John as “his dear bastard son” when he gave him the position as Captain of Calais.
9:10 pm
December 30, 2009
Offline
Sharon said:
Richard may have moved the Prince's from the Tower, but these records for clothing may not have been for them. Richard had a bastard son, John Gloucester. The Lord Bastard could refer to this boy. Richard referred to John as “his dear bastard son” when he gave him the position as Captain of Calais.
There is some doubt among historians as to whether John of Gloucester would have been referred to as the Lord Bastard as he had never held any lordships, whereas the Princes had.
7:28 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
wreckmasterjay said:
I am totally obsessed with historical stuff, lost treasures, mysteries and anything that needs looking into basically. So…..does anyone know of anything that needs “investigating” and/or to find the truth on it.
What really happened to the Sandringham Company of the Royal Norfolks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..n_the_East
The two territorial battalions served in Gallipoli. The 1/5th included the “Sandringham Company” which recruited from the King's estate at Sandringham.
On 12 August 1915, the Sandringham company suffered heavy losses at
Gallipoli when it became isolated during an attack. A myth grew up after
the War that they had advanced into a mist and simply disappeared.[2] A BBC TV drama, All the King's Men (1999), starring David Jason as Captain Frank Beck, was based upon their story.
It's always bunnies.
