Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookpossum
Apparently there was a trial some years ago, and Richard was found Not Guilty. Of course it could have been run by a group of ardent supporters - I can’t remember where I read about it and haven’t tried a search.
The princes were the vital ones for Henry because he destroyed Titulus Regius, which declared all the children of Edward IV illegitimate, in order to shore up his shaky claim to the throne. This shoring up was marrying Elizabeth, the boys’ sister. He wanted her to be legitimate, but if the boys were alive, their claim to the throne was before hers as they of course were made legitimate also by the removal of Titulus Regius - which means the right to rule.
|
True, that was Grant’s reasoning. I guess I can’t accept Grant’s argument in the first place, which is that Richard did not benefit from their deaths, because of the Titulus Regius. I know very little about English history, but it isn’t consistent with what I did read.
The various branches of the Plantagenet family had been jockeying for the throne and eliminating the competition for decades. As long as the boys were alive, they could be championed by supporters of Edward IV, or the remaining the Lancasters, or the Woodville hopefuls, as a pretence to rise against Richard.
I realize the same argument applied to Henry. If you live in times and in places where ‘might is right’, elimination of the competition is often seen as the best way to hang on to power.
I don’t think there is irrefutable proof Richard was responsible for the boys’ disappearance. Just that Grant’s declaration that Richard could not benefit from the boys’ murder is spurious. As
Catlady and
gmw have also noted, he’s a trained investigator who tracks down potential motives for a living and Richard’s motives are right there in plain sight.