Exactly. Which is why everyone should keep an open mind about ALL historic events. Only the dates are factual.
On another note, what's the public reaction going to be when QE II pegs it, if this is how people behave at the burial of a Monarch from over 500 years ago? The country will be at a standstill from her death until the funeral.
Embarrassing. It's a 530 year old skeleton. And he possibly gave the order to murder the true heir to the throne, Edward V. Now where the **** is he buried ???
I suspect people just thought it was an excuse for a day out, I doubt most of them know little, if anything, about the actual history.
He was Yorkist. That doesn't mean Yorkshire. Richard III was the Duke of Gloucester before he killed off the kids in the tower.
Raised in Yorkshire, ruled from Yorkshire, son of the Duke and duchess of York. You don't get much more Yorkshire. He was duke of Gloucester for being bestowed with the title. They were just handed out willy nilly to friends and family, not by any geographical connection.
Not just kids - the rightful heirs to the throne. Unless Richard III's claim that they were both bastards was true. But that's another chapter entirely.....
Support base from down south. Henry's was more northern. Yorkist in this sense doesn't mean Yorkshire.
Not Dukedoms for they came with great power. And during that part of our history, the greatest threat to a King's power was from his own family. The period from the death of Edward III in 1377 to the start of Henry Tudor's reign in 1485 was one of the bloodiest in English history.
Correct, the Houses of York and Lancaster were just Plantagenet titles originally from French nobility not based in the counties of Yorkshire or Lancashire. The Wars of the Roses had little to do with us Yorkshire folk. Prince Andrew is the current Duke of York for example, how is he a Yorkshire lad?
Thought it was rumoured at the time that at least one of the kids was illegitimate as his brother was off fighting a war at time of conception. If true then Dick had nothing to fear from his nephews. There were at least 2 others with much more to gain from their death with both parties having daily access to the boys. Like I said history being written (re) by the victor perhaps. What better way than brand him a child killer. His nephews to boot. Bad Dick, bad bad Dick. Look how they doctored the pictures of him post death.
The power is often held by those who know where the skeletons are hidden. As King Dick found out, once you cross them, that's your lot.
Richard claimed that his brother's Edward IV marriage to Elizabeth Woodville (the mother of the two boys in the Tower) was illegal because Edward was already betrothed to another when he married her. Under Law at that time any issue from the marriage were deemed illegitimate and could not be heirs to the throne. That was the basis for Richard's claim to the throne. I think the 'Edward being away at conception' theory is a vague possibility for one of the boys but highly unlikely for both. There has certainly been books (both fiction and non) written about it though.
Indeed. The marriage was also declared illegitimate before the boys disappearance, and their murder by Richard simply doesn't fit with the 'chivalric young knight' image he had prior to Shakespeare.
Here's some pictures of it all, a great day and fitting send off by all accounts. Gutted I wasn't there but it seems the local community did a sterling job. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
