So what's the new evidence anyway?

Summing up the 'new evidence' about the Princes in the Tower

1. They found Maximilian of Austria's receipt (for the payment of pikes) calling Lambert Simnel Edward IV's son instead of Edward IV's nephew (Warwick) so that would somehow prove Edward V survived. They try to convince us into trusting the word of a ruler who by his own admission in 1488 claimed he was duped by his mother-in-law into supporting a fake prince and then four years later did exactly the same thing again.

2. They also ask us to believe in a survival account provided by Perkin Warbeck because it's so detailed it's 'compelling', but they won't accept the same from Thomas More, for example, regardless of how detailed or how many names are provided in More's account (the good old picking and choosing).

3. They present a 'Richard' signature which is supposedly such a bold statement in itself it could only be the real name of the person who wrote it, as if the man pretending to be Richard of Shrewsbury would ever sign his documents with any other name.

These are truly abysmally poor arguments. It's like John Reeks said: this is not history, this is a PR campaign dashed with a side of intellectual dishonesty. If your argument can't be supported by real solid evidence it's not history, it's wishful thinking.

The Lost King: movie review

TLDR: not as Ricardian as I was expecting, but definitely a Ricardian movie. Enjoyable, but the historical arguments were weak.

I want to grab the makers of this movie and shake them and shout RICHARD  III IS AN IMPORTANT HISTORICAL FIGURE AND THEREFORE WORTHY OF FINDING HE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE “THE RIGHTFUL KING” NOR DOES HE HAVE TO BE GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD

My favourite part of the film was Harry Lloyd as the ghost of Richard III. He was just great. 

One moment that i loved, being a nerd, was when Philippa goes to a bookshop and asks about books on King Richard III and the woman says “we have 8 titles” “I’ll take them” “which ones?” “all of them.” MOOD.

Given that Philippa Langley was a producer on this movie I was worried they’d portray her as flawless but she felt like a real person rather than a saint. Even Richard’s ghost is like “your interest in me is getting obsessive.”

 I also liked the portrayal of ME. It felt like the moviemakers did their homework. The score at times was pretty overpowering and maybe a bit too whimsical.

“Tudor propaganda” this and “Tudor historians” that. This movie never acknowledges that anti-Richard Yorkists existed. Richard wasn’t just brought down by Henry Tudor, he was brought down by a Yorkist-Tudor coalition. Let’s not erase the teamwork of Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort!

There is one passing mention of Anne Neville, yaaaaaaay.

I dislike this movie’s implication that anti-Ricardians are ableist or they can’t see past Shakespeare. Ricardians aren’t the only ones reading sources!

Now on to the feeble historical arguments this movie allows to go unchallenged:

“Shakespeare made up the hunchback”. 

No. Shakespeare took the idea of Richard’s back and the idea of him having an abnormal birth from Thomas More’s history. 

“Richard III wasn’t a usurper but the rightful king! Edward was married to Eleanor Butler! His marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalid!”

Even if Eleanor was the ‘true wife’ of Edward IV (and isn’t it convenient that both were dead when Richard argued this?) Edward V was his father’s chosen heir. Edward IV specifically said he wanted Richard to be Protector, not king. If Edward IV wanted Richard to be king or considered him the rightful heir...he could have named Richard. He was the king!

“Richard didn’t kill Edward of Warwick or his nieces or his sister’s seven sons!”

Duh he didn’t. They were behind him in the line of succession! And if Edward of Warwick was technically ahead of Richard in the line of succession.... that means Richard wasn’t actually the rightful king Philippa. 

“In Henry VII’s first speech he doesn’t mention the princes’ murder, why? They were still alive!”

That’s a huge leap of logic oml. These two things...just don’t connect. 

“Richard III established innocent until proven guilty!” “Richard wanted a more just society”.

We’re really not going to mention the time he had people disembowelled for talking shit about him?

“Richard was an advocate for the printing press when people thought it was the work of the devil”

OK, first of all, Edward IV was Caxton’s patron and early printed works were dedicated to Elizabeth of York so jot that down. Stop acting like Richard was THE innovator here. Also, work of the devil?? What’s the source for that??

“Richard provided the safe strong leadership the country needed”

His coup killed Richard Grey, William Hastings, and Anthony Woodville. With no trial. Then he was on the throne for 2 years, and there were 2 attempts to remove him and the second succeeded. How low are your standards?? 

Nevertheless, the movie wasn’t as Ricardian as I thought it would be. Philippa asks Richard’s ghost “did you have them killed?” and he doesn’t say no. He simply asks her what she thinks. Also one character says we mustn’t sanctify OR demonise people.

This movie has caused controversy because there’s a character we’re clearly meant to hate called Richard Taylor. He’s patronising, dismissive, and pretty ableist too, so ableist that Philippa calls him out publicly and educates him that “having a disability doesn’t make you evil.” 

Unfortunately there’s a real guy called Richard Taylor, and I can see why he’s planning on suing for defamation. This was an easily avoidable problem! Just change the goddamn names, or have some proof that the real Taylor was a dick!

Iconic (and ironic) Ricardian claims:

* Dismissing Henry VII’s claim to the throne because it came from his mother’s side, when the Yorkist claim also came from a woman, Anne Mortimer (whose father was heir presumptive to Richard II via his mother Philippa Plantagenet, daughter of Lionel, 1st Duke of Clarence).

* Calling Henry VII a bastard because of his Beaufort blood (something that Richard III himself did during his slandering campaign against Henry) when Richard was also Beaufort by blood thanks to his mother Cecily Neville. Also, twice ironic considering that Richard’s grandfather, Richard 3rd Earl of Cambridge, may have been a bastard.

There's a part of me that thinks that the reason why Margaret Beaufort isn't all that well-liked in her portrayals in fictional media is partly because she can’t be sexualised.

Oh, absolutely! This is very evident in Gregory's novels where she is described as 'ugly as sin'. We all know the first thing mocking a woman for her appearance does is to single out said woman as particularly inferior, evil and/or undeserving of love and respect. It is, of course, convenient to blame a woman to absolve a man.

Everything about Margaret Beaufort is villainised, even her piety — which is another thing that makes Margaret so difficult to sexualise: there's no evidence that she ever had some great romance. On the contrary, she took a widow's vow of chastity whilst her husband was still alive. In the Gregory-esque logic of thinking, a woman is either beautiful and desirable and good, or ugly and frigid and evil.

For many in the Richard III Society, including Philippa Langley, Richard’s “hunchback” was a slanderous Tudor invention, and the confirmation of his scoliosis was a blow—even, for Langley, a “personal [. . .] disaster.” The excavation forced Langley and the Society to shift tack, from denying any spinal difference, to insisting that scoliosis would not have actually impaired the royal body. Langley’s excavation account describes scoliosis as a “condition, not a disability,” while the Society’s website stresses the fact that the athlete Usain Bolt also has scoliosis to demonstrate that it “doesn’t necessarily limit physical capability.” This strategy recalls a line from Josephine Tey’s 1951 Ricardian novel The Daughter of Time, in which a detective investigating the murder of the Princes in the Tower speaks to an expert who claims Richard had ‘“no visible deformity. At least, none that mattered.”’ Deformity, disability: all must be minimized, framed as “not matter[ing],” if this Richard is to be claimed by the Ricardians.

More than Richard’s moral reputation is at stake in the Society’s engagement with his skeleton. The Ricardians’ resistance to the idea of a physically impaired Richard relates to an anxiety that a disabled or visibly “othered” royal body would be incompatible with their perceptions of medieval English kingship as muscular, masculine, warlike. Langley’s excavation account characterises Richard and his “era” in terms inflected by nostalgic, romantic medievalism. If Richard was ever harsh, this was simply a product of his being a prince in a “ruthless era;” these qualities, moreover, were balanced out by his considerable martial “fortitude” and “chivalry.” The Society’s Richard is a knight, a pseudo-Arthurian defender of the realm—perhaps, recalling the popular emphasis on Richard’s death in battle, the last real fighting English king.

— Rowan Wilson, Reading the “human braille”: Discourses of Ableism and Medievalism in the Reburial of Richard III

Average reaction on Twitter.

I just read an article on this so called new evidence and I'm not impressed. Maximilian is one of the co-conspirators behind the perkin warbeck situation due to his conflict with Henry vii policies that didn't work to his advantage. Of course he would call warbeck one of the princes that was all part of the plan. What I find hilarious is that these are the same people who say everything thomas Moore wrote is a lie and propaganda 🙄

It's the same thing they say about Mancini's account of Richard III's usurpation — they say he was a foreigner so he can't be trusted and yet look at them trusting all those *selected* foreign accounts:

Interesting how they choose not to take the testimonies that took place in Portugal where three Portuguese knights confessed they knew Warbeck was an impostor and instead take the most invested foreign ruler who had a skin in the game against Henry VII to base their theory on.

What genuinely makes me mad are the arguments that are so classist in nature they sound so absurd it's incredible anyone buys them. So because those foreign rulers were royal they didn't lie? Because they were royal they couldn't be duped? Because someone wasn't born royal they couldn't learn how to present themselves like royalty, even with training and support?

It's equally ridiculous to take someone's signature at face value, though. I don't know what's more pitiful as 'proof'.

It's bizarrely common to see takes like "Why did Elizabeth of York marry Henry VII when he was the one who killed her Uncle Richard?"

Because she'd 100% care about the memory of the dead guy who bastardized her and her siblings, humiliated and degraded her mother, dragged her dead father's memory through the mud, murdered her uncle and her half-brother, and snatched away her 12-year old and 9-year old brother away from her and her family only for them to never be seen again and for him to usurp their throne.

The idea that she could love or fall in love with someone like that is still the stupidest thing that's ever come out of English history beliefs.

Hi! Yeah, it boggles the mind considering what her uncle made Elizabeth go through. He persecuted her maternal relatives, executed an uncle and a (half)brother without a trial, slandered them (including calling another half-brother a rap*st), kept her and her siblings and mother under armed house arrest so they couldn't escape, branded her father as a bigamist and a bad ruler, relegated her mother to the position of a concubine, and declared her and her siblings bastards. A French contemporary said he 'degraded' his nieces, which gives you a clue as to how Elizabeth would have felt about her own bastardisation (incidentally, he also kept the dowry her father had bequeathed for her marriage). All of that without mentioning the most glaring issue of usurping and doing away with her brothers, so like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ you're telling me she would feel bad about one specific uncle's death? What about the other uncle the former one killed? Wouldn't she care about that one too?

The idea that Elizabeth of York was in love with her uncle serves a purpose, though. It makes people think Richard could not have killed her brothers if she indeed was in love with him, and of course, makes it possible for her to be used as a stand-in replacement for Brides of Gloucester, people who only care about her uncle anyway and nothing about what she must have felt.

— David Horspool, Richard III: A Ruler and His Reputation

okay I just saw a Richard III stan on twitter claim that there's no way Elizabeth of York could have loved Henry VII because he was Ugly(tm) and so I just had to say/vent: the obsession with using physical attractiveness to unironically rate and compare historical figures is really fucking weird. This generally tends to happen with women (Henry VIII's wives in particular) but it's pretty common to see it with fans of Richard III as well, who are generally negative to Henry VII. Which is both very frustrating and very funny, because putting aside the generic compliments issued to royals, NEITHER of them were hailed as singularly attractive or singularly charismatic during their time as far as I know, they both looked like Some Guys who ruled the nation and (in Henry's case, idk much about Richard's reign) were quite good at it. And in Henry's case, its doubly weird and mean-spirited because I believe he was sick when his portrait was being made?

I mean, it's certainly not as though someone insulting a historical monarch's physical appearance is a major crime or anything lol, you do you, but it does become an issue when it spills into an analysis and examination of them as rulers and individuals. There's really no need to turn important periods of history into a hotness contest.

Also (more of a general rant), generally speaking, attractiveness was a feature conveniently assigned to most people of high status, and was almost a exaggerated. It's also relatively easy to identity genuine undeniable attractiveness based on the sheer intensity and awe with which contempraries raved about the people who possessed it (Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV and all their children were key examples of that lmao, as well as geoffrey of anjou and Philip iv of France as far as men were concerned), which was usually quite rare because the majority of people were not supermodels and were not expected to be lmao.

(a bit irrelevant, but I feel like the guy who played Henry in the white princess was absolutely perfectly for a younger version of his portrait, I haven't watched the show but I absolutely loved his casting)

Oh, I think Jacob Collins-Levy does look like a young Henry VII indeed, even if a more 'polished' version of him. Certainly, I think the real Henry VII had a much stronger nose, which leads me to the main part of your comment: some people find big noses attractive, for example. People experience attraction in such different ways! Someone might be attracted to another person's voice or hands, to someone's attention to detail or alternatively to their carefree attitude, to someone's jokes or their way of speaking or caring for their family or someone's intellect and insight. Attraction is a vast and varied universe, and to me it seems quite childish to reduce it only to someone's facial features. We don't even know what his body looked like, for example; we only have Vergil's word that his height was 'above the average', and Bishop Fisher's word that Henry was 'tall and of a fine build'.

Even if you consider Henry Tudor to have been the ugliest man in the world (which I doubt, as he was described as 'remarkably attractive' in his later years still), it's quite possible there was something about him that charmed people around him, in the sense that he was able to inspire extraordinary loyalty throughout his life. Thomas More said Bishop Foxe would give up his own father's head in order to serve Henry VII; Thomas Lovell was reported to have only one painting in his multiple residences, precisely a portrait of Henry VII. Henry was able to inspire and retain the trust of 400 Englishmen for two years in exile. The same thing that was attractive to his followers might have been attractive to Elizabeth of York as well, surely? We don't know!

According to a Venetian ambassador, Henry was 'gracious and grave', and according to Commynes, he was 'very pleasant, an elegant character, and a fine ornament in the court of France'. Once, during a conversation with the Spanish ambassador, his speech was described as 'like precious jewels'. I find it doubtful that Henry VII was an all-around unlikable, unattractive figure. And that's simply going by the premise that he was extraordinarily ugly, though when compared to other European rulers at the time, it seems reasonable to call him 'just some guy', if not actually attractive (see Charles VIII, Maximilian I, Louis XII, Ferdinand of Aragon, and even Philip 'the Fair').

I linked portraits in this ask but I don't even believe they are much conducive to a good discussion on attractiveness at all. It's not uncommon to find that many figures who were described as handsome/attractive (eg: Philip the Fair) don't actually look handsome/attractive to a 21st-century audience. And that might be simply because portraits or painting techniques of the time weren't able to transcribe their real physical attractiveness to us or because their ideas of attractiveness were different from ours—to which I ask: what's even the point of using portraits to call a historical figure attractive or unattractive, then? It's perhaps more useful to go by awed reports of a certain historical figure's attractiveness, as you said, and even then, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The resident Spanish Ambassador in England, for example, never once mentioned Elizabeth of York's looks in fifteen years, even though her beauty was mentioned elsewhere by other people.

Those types of comments against Henry VII do sound mean-spirited, as you said, even if not especially heinous (he and his family are, after all, dead). It's a sterile argument and proves no point as to a historical figure's ability to inspire loyalty or love in someone else, and even less as to their ability to rule well. If anything else, quite frankly it's not an argument at all, it's just the expected pettiness of a bad loser lol It gets even weirder at their insistence that Richard's reconstruction is especially handsome (which has inspired even some... questionable poetry).

(x)

I haven't read much about the princes in the tower, so I'm not experienced to say much about those events. But from what posts I've read about the apparent new evidence, I'm assuming it wasn't very helpful to actually figure out what happened to them.

Is it accurate to what people have managed to figure out so far?

Hi! I don't think I quite understand your question, but I'll try to answer it (sorry!). No one knows what happened to the princes (actually prince and king, one of the boys was Edward V). Although no evidence so far proves that they died around 1483-1485, no evidence proves that they survived either. I summarised their 'new' findings here (x) but what I can say about it is that I've seen no serious historian consider them as evidence of their survival because you actually have to believe that people who had vested interests in controlling England for their own political gain would be 100% honest and upright about supporting alternative candidates to the English crown.

Hi! This is probably going to sound very rambly but I'm really confused and my thoughts are all over the place

The Ricardian xenophobia and anti-Welsh prejudice against Henry VII's ascension is so sickening to see, but it's also ... extremely baffling? In my opinion, there's no other reason it could have originated other than Ricardian double standards.

Because..the Yorkists *also* had Welsh heritage. Edward IV emphasized his Welsh lineage as much Henry VII did and much earlier (highlighting his descent from Llewellyn, utilizing the prophecies of Cadwaladr and the struggle between the Red and White Dragon, etc). The first Welshman to be ennobled since Owain Glyndwr’s fight for freedom (William Herbert) was during his reign, and the fact that very few Welshmen bothered to obtain letters of denizenship during that time (literally *one* person from 1467—1483, and while one is obviously still too many, it's a significant drop from his predecessors and should absolutely be noted in a positive way) is a clear indication that he did not make much use of the Penal Code. Which is a good thing, obviously! Yet for some reason, this is conveniently ignored, even though we know for a fact that David Powel believed that Henry VIII’s Welsh heritage was from his mother Elizabeth of York rather than his father.

The Yorkists *also* had Irish heritage through Elizabeth de Burgh, Countess of Ulster & wife of Lionel of Antwerp, which is also conveniently ignored for ... reasons.

And the comparison between Elizabeth of York’s “English Plantagenet blood” versus Henry VII’s “Tudor blood” which I have seen from some Ricardians is so bizarre to me. Apart from her Welsh and Irish connections through her father as discussed above, Elizabeth of York’s grandmother was from Luxemburg. Her grandfather began his career as a simple English knight. The Woodvilles, as usual, are simultaneously vilified and entirely disregarded when talking about the supposed "end of the Plantagenets.

So like...I'm a little confused WHY people assume that Henry VII's ascension heralded this massive change in terms of nationality or bloodline? Like you mentioned, he was also directly descended from Edward III. His grandmother was the Queen of England, his uncle was the King of England and his mother was one of the wealthiest English heiresses of her time. And Owen Tudor was given letters of English denizenship after his marriage to Catherine of Valois, which would have passed to his sons and grandson.

Of course, when talking about the Plantagenets/Yorkists, I mainly focused on Edward IV and his children, which probably why it's barely taken into account. When people fantasize about the so-called “purity” of the Plantagenets and Yorkists, they’re mostly (99.9% of the time, tbh) talking about Richard III, the emblem of "Englishness" (🤮) in the Victorian era and other eras (although he's certainly not the only one - Henry V, Henry IV to an extent, Edward III, Richard Lionheart and Henry II are all viewed in a very similar way), and mindlessly swallowing Richard’s own propaganda again Henry VII.

(While this isn't completely related, I wouldn't feel comfortable sending this ask without it so I hope it's okay and it doesn't get too long. To be honest: the Tudors are ALSO seen as symbols of English nationalism by an overwhelming majority. They are probably the most famous and well-known English dynasty; a vast number of English history books literally start with the year 1485; the red-and-white Tudor rose is one of the most memorable symbols of the English monarchy; and a vast number of people view that era as the "golden age" of England; Henry VIII and Elizabeth I Tudor are probably the most well known English monarchs of all time. So I certainly don't feel comfortable believing that there's a one-sided negative view against them because that's objectively not true; they're seen in a very positive manner by the vast majority of people. Which is why the contrary claims are so confusing to me - they're so vehement, but they also make no sense whatsoever, and they're completely opposite from the positive and glorified view that - overwhelmingly imo, at least internationally - opposes them)

Sorry if any of this isn't framed properly, English isn't my first language. I can send an ask to clarify anything it it's too confusing to understand 😅

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply! I must admit that I lost you there in the end (sorry) but I think I got the gist of your ask. There are a couple of views regarding the 'Welshness' of the Tudors. Some people disregard it entirely because of the things you said by the end of your ask: Henry VIII's break with Rome and Elizabeth I's triumph against the Spanish invasion/armada have been regarded as hallmarks of the making of British (and by British, read: English) culture, as much as Henry V's fight against the French, for example. Of course, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were not (culturally at least) Welsh, so I would find it equally weird to claim that 'Welsh' was the defining Tudor trait.

As Dr Adam Chapman highlighted in this podcast episode, there was no such thing as 'Wales' as a well-defined country. Welsh identity was cultural, political and based on language. What made Henry VII Welsh was not some x-times removed ancestor, but the fact that he spent his formative years 'in the most Welsh place imaginable' (William Herbert's household), that he most likely spoke Welsh, famously enjoyed Welsh culture (Welsh mead, Welsh music, openly promoted the cults and celebrations of Welsh saints such as Saint David & Saint Armel), promoted Welsh servants, and the fact that he was embraced as Welsh by the Welsh themselves.

But mostly, I think many people do not know that the Tudors were originally Welsh at all! Mostly, people who bemoan that aspect — even if, technically, only one Tudor monarch was Welsh — are the ones who like to romanticise Richard as the last true bastion of Englishness such as Philippa Gregory, Rosemary Jarman, John Ahsdown-Hill, Sandra Worth etc. It is ironic, as you said, because the Yorkists also had Welsh heritage, and when push comes to shove you'll find plenty of ricardians saying Richard was 'more Welsh' than Henry VII because of some ancestor x-times removed, even though Henry had a Welsh grandparent, was born in Wales, was raised in Wales, and grew up in a Welsh-speaking household where Welsh cultural traditions were held. Apparently, being Welsh is terrible unless it's time to say Henry VII was fake Welsh or was less Welsh than the Yorkists.

(never mind that Henry VII was also descended from Llewellyn the Great)

(also stupid because Henry VII never claim to be descended from King Arthur)

It doesn't matter if they don't consider Henry VII to have been very Welsh (or Welsh at all) because suddenly being Welsh is too cool for such an uncool guy like Henry Tudor. The Welsh people of his time viewed him as Welsh. He had all the right conditions to compete for the prophetic mab darogan title as explained here, and that's something considering a part of the Welsh people had been willing to accept even the Yorkists for the title at the time they were against the Lancastrian crown. Edward IV explored that advantage on some occasions, especially when it came to legitimising his rule via prophetic discourse.

However, as stated by Gruffydd Aled Williams, if Edward IV 'did not excite overmuch enthusiasm among the Welsh bards' (in the number of poems produced), it seems like Richard did not even come close to that. It's not that we find very few poems praising Edward's brother (I wonder if there are actually any), it's that the Welsh poets were especially harsh on Richard — he was compared to King Herod (who ordered the killing of the first-born sons), and called unchristian names such as 'saracen'. He was also called ableist names such as 'little Richard', 'deformed Richard', 'little raider', 'small Richard', 'feeble-bodied', 'little ape' and so on. From 1483 onwards, the bards who once had their loyalties divided between Jasper Tudor and Edward IV/William Herbert, unanimously united in Henry Tudor's favour.

Again, cultural identity mattered a lot, which seems to be conveniently forgotten when they decide that it's actually cool to be Welsh. Most of the time they don't seem to see it as good quality, though. The aspect of cultural identity matters when they like to explore the idea that the Tudors were not culturally English, so they didn't know and respect English traditions. It's not uncommon to see the claim that Chilvary died with Richard at Bosworth — Sandra Worth's “at Bosworth Field died the Age of Chivalry” — as if Henry VII didn't extensively engage with chilvaric performance (x, x) and discourse (x).

In my opinion, the real problem with this kind of discourse and re-imagination of the past is, of course, the very real anti-immigrant and English nationalist sentiment that has gained so much currency in Brexit-era England. Henry VII & his family are dead, they can't be offended by any of that — the immigrants who are associated with diseases according to that kind of rhetoric, for example, are not.

Hi, I've only recently gotten interested in the Wars of the Roses and since I am unable to find an unbiased analysis, I wanted to ask: what do you think of Eleanor Talbot and the idea that she was allegedly married to Edward IV?

The more I research the claim, the more incredulous I get that it's often taken so seriously, particularly by Ricardian circles. I'm very skeptical about the fact that this supposed marriage was kept secret for ... 19 years? Even more? Logically, it is not possible for a piece of information that explosive and nationally relevant to stay under lock and key for that long, especially considering Edward's political enemies. I've read some pieces on Eleanor and the most any of them can do is theorize that she may have been romantically involved with Edward at some point before May 1464. But a potential affair hardly means marriage; as far as I can tell, Edward IV appears to have had affairs with lots of women, but Elizabeth Woodville was clearly the one he wanted as his wife and queen, and obviously the only one who was acknowledged and honored as such. From what I can make out, I don't think he would have had that much difficulty getting out of the marriage if he particularly wanted to: considering it was very private, his public acknowledgement of it was crucial, and his word would have triumphed whatever Elizabeth or her family would say; people gathering at Reading to find a way to end it or persuade him to end it did not amount to anything; Wake's witchcraft allegations against Jacquetta directly relating to their marriage which were cleared by Edward's council; even the fact that Elizabeth Woodville did not produce a son until 7 years after she became queen. He very clearly wanted to remain married to her even though he did have potential routes out of it. I've also observed that people tend to link the circumstances of his marriage to Elizabeth and alleged marriage to Eleanor and call it a pattern of behavior, without considering the fact that once again, being involved with someone doesn't automatically mean marriage, and that it's very possibly a deliberately constructed pattern/parallel by the people making the allegations.

And it seems awfully, almost embarrassingly convenient that this came up after both parties were dead, when Richard was actively slandering his brother's licentousness, and when he wanted to usurp the throne from his 12 year old nephew when neither he (Edward V) nor his mother (Elizabeth Woodville) were in a position to assert themselves.

Of course, we'll never truly know for sure but ... what do you think?

Hi! To get straight to the point, there is simply no evidence that Edward IV had been married to anyone other than Elizabeth Woodville. You'd think ricardians would be more careful about this claim since they make such a big deal out of the lack of material proof linking Richard to the murder of the princes (actually king and prince) in the Tower, but no. Lack of evidence doesn't work both ways in this case, apparently.

As many historians have pointed out, parliament, which ultimately ruled that Edward IV had committed bigamy and invalidated his marriage with Elizabeth Woodville, simply did that on the grounds that it was ‘the common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame is throughout the land’. Although parliament could legislate over the succession of the crown, it had no jurisdiction to invalidate anyone's marriage, since only the Church had authority over those matters at that time. If there were any proof that Edward IV had really been married to Eleanor Talbot/Butler, Richard and his supporters would have called an ecclesiastical court made exclusively of prelates and representatives of the pope to rule over that case based on canon law, as that was the Church's prerogative since the 12th century. A. J. Pollard made a very apt observation about this:

Had Richard lll been the deeply troubled, honourable and honest man we are asked to believe him to be he would surely have followed the course of a properly constituted investigation.

Ruth Mazo Karras has a great book called Unmarriages: Women, Men and Sexual Unions in the Middle Ages where she presents many cases of marriages judged by the church to have been clandestine or invalid and actually explains how the Church came to have a monopoly on the legislation of marriages. Jennifer Ward cites an example of an illegal marriage claim taken to the Pope and casts light on how the investigation of an ecclesiastical court should have proceeded in face of the pre-contract allegations made by Richard and his supporters:

This issue of legitimacy and therefore of inheritance was at the heart of the best-known twelfth-century case, concerning Richard de Anesty, dating from 1158-63. Richard claimed to be the heir of his uncle, William de Sackville, on the grounds that William's only child, Mabel de Francheville, was illegitimate. If Mabel had been legitimate, she would probably have inherited her father's land. Richard alleged that William had broken his marriage contract with Albereda de Tresgoz and married Mabel's mother, Adelicia, daughter of Amfrid the sheriff. William and Albereda were said to have expressed present consent, and, according to Richard's account, Albereda asserted that she was William's lawful wife at his wedding to Adelicia, but failed to be heard because of the crowd and because William turned a deaf ear. She was later granted a decree by the bishop of Winchester and Pope Innocent II that William should return to her as her husband. Mabel argued, however, that the marriage contract with Albereda only amounted to betrothal, and that both Albereda and William had agreed to end it; the relationship had never been consummated and William had returned Albereda's dowry. William and Adelicia's marriage had been carried out in the face of the church, and Albereda's father had been present at the wedding feast. The annulment of the marriage by the bishop was null and void. For Alexander III the annulment was the crucial issue, and Mabel was adjudged illegitimate.

We can make a few observations about this case. First, notice how William's alleged first wife, Albereda, sought the Bishop of Winchester then the Pope himself to protest against William's second marriage and have it annulled. Why wouldn't Eleanor Talbot, the daughter of the Earl Shrewsbury and NIECE of the Earl of Warwick, who had such influence over Edward IV's early reign, be silent about Edward IV's second marriage? It's not like she was a helpless nobody who wouldn't have anyone to vouch for her case in the papal court. Moreover, according to a Burgundian report about the revelation of Edward and Elizabeth's marriage, many dissatisfied lords tried to come up with means to annul the marriage, as anon cited in this ask. Knowing this, and having the possibility to be backed by number #1 dissatisfied noble in the kingdom, Warwick, why wouldn't Eleanor have spoken against Edward and Elizabeth's union at that time?

Second observation: notice how both parties concerning the legitimacy of the marriage of William and Adelicia, namely Richard and his cousin Mabel, had to testify in front of the court and produce witnesses, documents and/or reports that attested to their claim that the marriage was valid or invalid. There was never anything even remotely close to this in the case concerning Edward IV's marriage. Where was the appeal to the Pope? Where were the witnesses of Edward IV's first marriage testifying in a clerical court? In fact, we don't even actually know for sure who claimed to be witness to Edward IV's alleged first marriage. The document approving Richard's rule, Titulus Regius, only claimed that it was 'the common opinion of the people and the public voice and fame' but never actually cited anyone as an actual witness to the alleged first marriage of the king.

No contemporary English source gives the name of a witness. Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells, is only cited as the author of the bigamy claim and the only witness of the alleged first marriage in a French chronicle by Philippe de Commynes, a servant of King Louis XI. Commynes goes as far as to call him 'ce mauvais evesque', that is, 'this evil bishop'. That Commynes' claim is plausible comes from the fact that one of Henry VII's first actions after Bosworth was to order Bishop Stillington's arrest. If we accept that Stillington had helped Richard by concocting the pre-contract claim—and ricardians must accept it otherwise there's simply no name to validate their theory—the picture we're left with is not pretty. One, Bishop Stillington had previously been imprisoned by Edward IV in 1478 so Stillington was hardly an unbiased witness against Edward IV.

Two, in 1472 whilst he was still Edward IV's Chancellor, an office Stillington exercised up until 1473, he took part in a ceremony recognising the legitimacy of Edward Prince of Wales as Edward IV's heir. Along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and eight other 'Lords Spiritual' (that is, prelates) and thirty-six 'Lords Temporal' (that is, noblemen) Stillington solemnly swore to Prince Edward that

that in case hereafter it happen You, by God’s disposition, to outlive our said Sovereign Lord, I shall then take and accept You for true, very, and righteous King of England, &tc. And faith and truth to you shall bear.

If Bishop took part in that ceremony knowing the boy was illegitimate, he should have acted so as to either speak against it (admittedly, difficult to do), decline to take part in the ceremony by faking an illness or some other excuse (possible), or seek ways to legalise the king's current marriage by way of appeal to the papal courts, something people in irregular marriage situations did all the time. See to what lengths John of Gaunt went to have his Beaufort children legitimised. It seems scarcely possible that Edward IV, who was careful enough to orchestrate ceremonies to invest his son Edward as England's heir and recognise his authority over charters and conciliar bodies, would have left his heir as vulnerable to the law as ricardians claim he did.

Another point to the whole pre-contract story, is that it seems to have been only a later addition to the reasons Richard 'was offered' the crown. According to Mancini, Richard's affiliates' first idea was to claim Edward IV was a bastard (and his children unable to rule consequently). Ricardians claim Mancini was a foreigner and simply misunderstood the terms that were preached at St Paul's Cross, but The London Chronicler also believed that the first version that was preached was that Edward IV himself was illegitimate. Mancini tells us that the claim was not well received by the audience, so it makes sense that Richard's supporters would have quickly dropped it. The claim is lightly touched upon in the parliamentary act approving Richard's rule in the observation that Richard was his father's undoubted heir and the only one born in England. It alludes, of course, to the fact that Edward IV was born in France and George of Clarence in Ireland, as if subtly casting doubts about their legitimacy.

Lastly, even if the pre-contract story was true, it still by no means should be a definite reason to make Edward V unable to succeed his father. As Horspool has pointed out, solutions to that problem included 'securing a retrospective canonical or papal judgement of the invalidity of the pre-contract; an Act of Parliament legitimizing the children of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage, or [...] proceeding to the coronation of Edward V, which would legitimize him by making him the Lord’s anointed'. Hypothetically, if parliament was competent to declare Edward V illegitimate enough to overrule an ecclesiastical court, it was equally competent to declare the boy legitimate. In face of all these possibilities to legitimise his brother's heir, Pollard has the correct assessment of the situation:

The truth of the matter is that Richard III did not want Edward V to be legitimate because he did not want him to be king.

Considering Richard made no effort to sustain his nephews' right to rule, as had been asked of him in his condition as Lord PROTECTOR, the pre-contract allegation must be seen in that light: a poorly sustained, entirely unevidenced excuse to justify an act of usurpation.

I'm getting back into the Wars of the Roses and the events of 1483 and OH BOY

A persistently recurring dialogue in Ricardian arguments is the idea that Richard couldn't have killed the Prince's in the Tower because he was ... secretly too benevolent to do so. Or because the act of child murder (to be more specific: child murder of his own nephews under his legal protection) is so heinous that there's no way their fav could have done it.

Which has always seemed so incredibly bizarre to me because his treatment of his family in 1483 is DAMNING:

We know that Richard had his 12-year old nephew Edward V forcibly seized from his maternal relatives. We know that his 9-year old nephew Richard of York's mother was tricked or (most likely) "coerced" into giving him up from sanctuary. We know that all seven of Richard's EXTREMELY YOUNG nieces and nephews were bastardized - I think people often forget how horrifically young they were. Bridget was 3 (literally a toddler), Katherine was 4, Anne was 6. We know that he declared his sister in law's marriage invalid, stripping her off her status as queen and thus degrading and humiliating her on an unprecedented level; we know he accused her of witchcraft and murder. We know he imprisoned and usurped his 12 year old nephew and called him "Edward the Bastard" in official documents.

We know that he lured two of his in-laws (+ Vaughan) into amicable respect before arresting them for no reason (which also happened to Hastings) and that they were executed without a trial. We know he executed yet another one of his in-laws, Thomas St. Leger, orphaning his own 6-year old niece, Anne.

We ALSO know that he ran a smear campaign against his own dead brothers, one of whom literally died days ago and trusted him immensely during his life. He accused said brother of illegitimacy (while their mother was still alive. Idk why else Mancini would report this unless Richard of his supporters tried that technique - it certainly wasn't novel as Warwick had tried the aame), of bigamy, of being a bad ruler (which is objectively untrue lol. E4 had faults like all kings, but he established his dynasty in the throne, secured it against external threats, reasserted royal authority, left behind two sons, and died solvent in his bed. That's a pretty good record). He attempted to discredit his brothers because they were ... not born in England unlike him, so they were ... less suited to rule???

I'm narrowing this down to Richard actions to his family in 1483 but my point is ... surely someone who was capable of doing that to his own immediate family would also be willing to kill the Princes (one prince and one king, actually. A king who was a direct threat to him) of the Tower? Surely someone who was ruthless enough to forcibly seize, imprison, bastardize and usurp his 12 year old and 9 year old nephews would be ruthless enough to kill said nephews? HOW do so many people find this difficult to believe; it's literally the ONLY logical conclusion for their usurption and "disappearance".

It's strange because I don't think anyone denies the fact that Henry VI, Richard III, Edward II and Arthur of Brittany were all killed. There are obviously a few who believe that Edward II and Richard II escaped or that Henry VI actually died of "melancholy" (lmao), but they're very, very few and none deny the high and likely possibility of murder because the vast majority of people are not that freaking naive. I don't understand why this same mentality is not applied to Richard III's mysterious and convenient "vanishing" of the Princes of the Tower right after he usurps the throne. They're all English kings, not love interests in a soap opera. Ruthlessness is required to hold onto power; NO KING in history has been exempt from that.

There’s also this widespread belief that nobody ever claimed Richard killed the Princes during his actual life and the accusation only started after his death (and it’s not just Ricardians who think that. It’s actually a VERY common line of thought when discussing the Wars of the Roses). In which case, they seem to have forgotten Mancini, whose criticisms of the Woodvilles that are rooted in Richard’s propaganda they have no issue repeating, who very clearly states that “already there was a suspicion that he (Edward V) had been done away with”. And it wasn’t just Mancini? Rumors about their deaths were WIDESPREAD in Europe during Richard’s reign: Weinreich’s Danzig Chronicle records in 1483 that “Richard, the King’s brother, has put himself in power and crowned in England and he had his brother’s children killed, and the Queen put away secretly also”. Rochefort, the French chancellor, reported their deaths in a speech before the States General in January 1484: “See how his (Edward IV’s) children already quite old and brave have been murdered with impunity and the crown has been transferred to their assassin”. (Sidenote: the king of France, Charles VIII, was only 13 when he ascended, just a year older than Edward V). Danzig’s Chronicle always gets me because they literally believed Elizabeth Woodville had also been murdered; that’s how bad the rumors and Richard’s reputation had gotten (And of course, it calls Elizabeth “Queen” but she certainly wasn’t queen anymore. Since her marriage was declared invalid, she was stripped off her title and Richard wasted no time in calling her "Dame Elizabeth Gray". She was thus deprived of her wealth, her lands, her goods, and most importantly, the security of her status/former status to ensure the protection and dignity of herself or her extremely young bastardized children. This was a horrifically vulnerable predicament and also utterly unprecedented, from what I can tell? No queen before her had been stripped off their status like that; Isabella of Gloucester, whose marriage to John was annulled soon after his ascension, was never crowned queen. Queens with overthrown husbands were also not deprived of their former status, from what I know: Isabella of France obviously wasn’t and we know that Margaret of Anjou was called “the qween Margarete sytyme wyff and spowse to king harry the sexthe” in official records of the London Skinners Fraternity, presumably allowed by Elizabeth herself. What Richard did to Elizabeth Woodville, his own sister-in-law, was singularly degrading in nature and should be recognized as such).

Hello! It's quite shocking how so many authors tend to blame Elizabeth Woodville's horrible experiences (losing a husband, a brother, three sons, status and security all within the short space of a year) on herself because of her family's supposed 'social-climbing ways' — literally how a recent article in the Smithsonian Magazine described her. The allegation that nO oNe AcCuSeD rIcHaRd during his own lifetime is, of course, so spectacularly shoddy it does not stand up to scrutiny. Besides the accusations you cited, there were also a number of Welsh poets who did accuse him, and perhaps more if the Welsh records of that time are actively translated.

It's incredible that people will always cry 'Tudor propaganda!' to say the Tudors controlled everything that was written in England during their time in power whilst going with the premise that Richard didn't do that during his own time? There's literally a surviving letter of his saying all 'seditious bills' written and spread against him should be taken down and destroyed unread, under the pain of death. William Collyngbourne was condemned to a horrible execution because, among other treasonous activities, he spread 'seditious bills' against Richard. People in England most likely did accuse Richard during his own time, their accusations simply haven't survived because they were destroyed.

(Some of what Collyngbourne spread was preserved in Robert Fabyan's early 16th-century chronicle. We can see both an accusation against Richard and a comment on his scoliosis: The Cat, the Rat and Lovell our Dog / Doe rule all England under a Hog / The crooke-backt Boar the way hath found / To root our Roses from our ground / Both flower and bud he will confound / Till King of Beasts the swine be crown’d / And then, the Dog, the Cat and Rat / Shall in his trough feed and be fat).

The problem is that people see the murder of Edward V and his brother as a matter of morality and not as a matter of politics. As you said, every king in England who had been deposed had been murdered so far (and would be, again, see Charles I). Even Edward V himself knew that and was preparing for death, as his own doctor went on to tell Mancini. Arthur of Brittany disappeared to never be found again and everyone supposes he was murdered by his uncle King John because he disappeared whilst imprisoned by his uncle, but it's somehow unfair to assume the same happened to Edward V and his brother?

Frankly, they take Richard to be a naive politician, and his years as Duke of Gloucester contradict that. His actions in 1483, always one step ahead of everyone and driving his takeover of the throne contradict that. In both times he had shown himself to be ruthless — though of course, as a 15th-century nobleman, he was by no means unique in that. During his time as duke, Richard kidnapped a 60-year-old lady, Elizabeth Howard the dowager Countess of Oxford, from her nunnery and imprisoned her until his threats persuaded her to sign off her lands to him. It was quite the scandal. During his time as Lord Protector, he invited people over for dinner only to imprison them and ultimately execute them without a trial (Rivers and Grey), or invited them for a council session only to, again, summarily execute them (Hastings). He knew exactly when to take a life. Jean de Wavrin registered in his chronicle (written in the 1470s) the time when Richard, on witnessing an argument between Edward IV and a York citizen told Rivers they should kill said citizen (except Rivers found another way to clear the scene). Richard wasn't exactly a well of mercifulness.

Life as a 15th-century nobleman required a certain ruthlessness, and Richard would have learned it very well. Just think of the time he acted in his brother's interests to summarily execute the last Lancastrians who had sought sanctuary at Tewkesbury, or the time his brother had to have the last king killed (according to a contemporary chronicle, Richard was present at the Tower during that day — he probably wasn't the one to kill Henry VI but he most certainly knew what was going on). It goes against belief to imagine Richard wouldn't know that people would rise against him in the name of his brother's children — as indeed they did as soon as Richard left London — or worse, against his own son. Of course, he wasn't a one-dimensional villain, it's possible he thought himself providentially guided or England's best option for a king, but neither was he a fool inexperienced in English politics.

Sometimes i think i' m going crazy. Before Richard was found fans denied forever he had skeleton problems, he was completely normal and his back issues was evil tudor propaganda. Whole movement was built on it, extreme hostility to it. They find him, all the above just disappeared, like it never existed. So before that hunchback rumors (how they called it when it "nasty lies") was disgusting and made up. Now they are weird and welcome scoliosis (how they call it now so he sounds medical and not scary). But the framing, from a horrible thing to say, to now an unfortunate condition he beat, upsets me. Its so manipulative. so now he's more cool because he did really awesome things coping, when they used to hate the idea he had it! And so tudors hated him bec they were "ableist" when it used to be they invented it! But I'm just hoping other people see it and get as mad as me

Hello! I received this ask several months ago but it got buried in my inbox (I'm so sorry). You're not alone in your observation. Rowan Wilson pointed out how the Richard III Society and its members went from completely denying any physical difference to admitting Richard's scoliosis but brushing over any possible disability.

Don't get me wrong, the Tudors and Richard's contemporaries (we find comments on his scoliosis from before his death) were absolutely ableists when they singled out Richard's scoliosis as a visual mark of his reign and character. But so too was denying any chance of disability because that would not make him the warrior they equate with good medieval kingship. Do you get what I mean?

I was wondering what the tag Ricardians for ts means?

I’ve seen it a few times, however I haven’t been able to figure out what it means. You wouldn’t mind please telling me what it means, would you?

Hello! 'for ts' is an old tumblr expression for tagging content that might be annoying or triggering — 'for ts' literally means 'for tumblr savior', a tool to hide posts which contain certain words or phrases once you have them saved in your settings (like you can do on XKit). I tag ricardian discourse as 'ricardians for ts' so people who are not interested in the discussion or are annoyed by it can have their eyes spared. It's simply an old tagging convention on tumblr for aiding people who want to avoid certain content.