New Leaf April 2019 Discussion • The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey

[gmw]

Originally Posted by issybird

Elizabeth Woodville is in today's news. A recently unearthed letter suggests she died of the plague.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...onal-archives?

One of the things I found interesting was the she was introduced as as Henry VIII's grandmother - only later did they get around to mentioning that she was mother to the princes in the tower. Henry VIII looms larger in the public mind, apparently ... also, that the disappearance is still just "the princes in tower". All this time later and we still won't/can't commit to saying the murder of her sons.

[Bookpossum]

Well, I suppose everyone thinks they know about "the princes in the Tower" and what happened to them, so it's good shorthand as it were.

Thanks for the link, issybird.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Well, I suppose everyone thinks they know about "the princes in the Tower" and what happened to them, so it's good shorthand as it were.

Isn't it odd that we think "princes in the Tower" when one of them was the rightful king?

[Wearever]

Thanks for this link Issybird !
What a find ! It does make sense if she had the plague she would be buried quickly. Also while reading The White Queen, in this book she and her mother used I guess mild magic or perhaps white magic. They also had to be very careful, if they were seen as witches they would have been burned at the stake. Especially during the Plague years. Travellers often passed corpses of accused witches on the side of roads as a warning. They blamed witchcraft for the plague.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Isn't it odd that we think "princes in the Tower" when one of them was the rightful king?

Except that he wasn’t!

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Isn't it odd that we think "princes in the Tower" when one of them was the rightful king?

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Except that he wasn’t!

Sorry Bookpossum the article actually leans towards Catlady on this one, and acknowledges him as the rightful king. Second paragraph begins “Elizabeth, the wife of Edward IV, mother of Edward V and maternal grandmother of Henry VIII...”

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Victoria

Sorry Bookpossum the article actually leans towards Catlady on this one, and acknowledges him as the rightful king. Second paragraph begins “Elizabeth, the wife of Edward IV, mother of Edward V and maternal grandmother of Henry VIII...”

Oh yes, he was kept on the king list, as it were, by the Tudors, and Henry VIII's son was therefore called Edward VI.

But in arguing that Richard "stole the throne" from Edward V, I think it is well to remember the enormous power of the church back then. After all, Henry VIII couldn't get an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and had to break away from Rome in order to be able to marry Anne Boleyn.

So the fact that the church agreed with and was party to Titulus Regius, and the Archbishop of Canterbury crowned Richard king cannot be brushed aside as something he made them do. The setting aside of Edward was not done lightly, or just because Richard demanded it.

[gmw]

But it's even messier than that. If we accept the boys as legitimate heirs then the phrase "princes in the tower" is inaccurate; it should be "king and prince in the tower". And if we do not accept them as legitimate then "princes in the tower" is even more inaccurate; it should be "bastards in the tower". (And to be really picky, there is only a limited space of time that they were known to actually be in the tower anyway.)

If we accept that Richard III originally had no designs on the throne, then up until the proclamation (on 25 or 26 June - Wikipedia seems to have both dates), the lords must have believed they had a king in the tower. (It's oh so convenient to have the royal residence and royal prison in one building ... maybe we should try that with our modern day arrangements. )

It seems to me that it doesn't matter which way you cut it, "princes in the tower" is an unsatisfactory description of the situation.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by gmw

It seems to me that it doesn't matter which way you cut it, "princes in the tower" is an unsatisfactory description of the situation.

Half a millennium on, I think it's a reasonable shorthand no matter on which side you are. Everyone knows who are meant.

It reminds me of the universal appellation of "Princess Diana" for "The Princess of Wales"/"Diana, Princess of Wales." "Princess Diana" was never correct, but it would have been absurd to insist on it. I'm a stickler for correct usage of British titles (mostly because they tell me how much an author knows about his subject), but I let that one go. Similarly, "the putative ousted King in the tower and his younger brother" doesn't flow.

[gmw]

Given that royalty are allowed to make it up as they go along (see this about Prince Philip), not to mention that they keep creating and recreating titles, I can't get too caught up what is strictly correct, just as long as it's obvious who we are talking about (which is often the real problem).

[Catlady]

The boys were the king and the heir before Titulus Regius, bastards after it, and then the dead king and the dead heir when Titulus Regius was repealed.

I guess Richard technically was not guilty of regicide, only of murder.

[Wearever]

It is confusing, Edward V was never crowned King, Richard captured him on his way to his coronation. Then Titulus Regius was invoked by Richard, then it was revoked by Henry Vll. Henry Vlll then named his son Edward the Vl. So Edward the V is King Edward V. Posthumously. He was Prince in the tower and became King years later when it was an advantage to Henry Vll to do so.

It's true they change the rules and make up titles as they go along. Everyone goes along with the sitting King.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Oh yes, he was kept on the king list, as it were, by the Tudors, and Henry VIII's son was therefore called Edward VI.

But in arguing that Richard "stole the throne" from Edward V, I think it is well to remember the enormous power of the church back then. After all, Henry VIII couldn't get an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and had to break away from Rome in order to be able to marry Anne Boleyn.

So the fact that the church agreed with and was party to Titulus Regius, and the Archbishop of Canterbury crowned Richard king cannot be brushed aside as something he made them do. The setting aside of Edward was not done lightly, or just because Richard demanded it.

You make a great point in terms of the power of the church. And yes, it absolutely forbid divorce. But the church and state had separate mandates and distinct authorities. The Titulus Regius was within Parliament’s domain. The consent of the church wasn’t necessary for the legislation, as it would be for a divorce.

I think it’s shaky to build a case for Richard on the basis of an unimpeachable church. If the church was so independent and wouldn’t just go along with Richard’s demands, why did it remain silent and look the other way for decades while Edward IV was bigamous? Bigamy should have been as morally offensive as divorce to trustworthy Bishops.

If instead, the church was morally offended by Edward’s bigamy, but silent because of their fear of reprisal, then it’s reasonable to assume they went along with Richard’s demand out of fear as well.

Originally Posted by Catlady

The boys were the king and the heir before Titulus Regius, bastards after it, and then the dead king and the dead heir when Titulus Regius was repealed.

Where was the justice and due process? No evidence was given. And since both parties were dead, they were denied an opportunity to refute the allegation. Parliament seemed to work quite differently than a court.

[CRussel]

Certainly, blanket statements about who was the rightful king, and who was murderer/usurper can be made. But I think the evidence at this late date for any sort of absolute statements of _fact_, are a bit OTT. That being said, I'm solidly on the side of Richard III as being the legitimate king, if only by virtue of the fact of his having been actually crowned. And even after reading alternative accounts, I'm not convinced he murdered the "princes in the tower".

[Catlady]

Edward V has the regnal number, so he was the king, albeit briefly. And the repeal of Titulus Regius confirms that kingship.