Yes, it's time for another of these threads!
I have recently been reading articles and listening to podcast episodes by the author Matt Lewis, who has written a number of books including 'The Survival of the Princes in the Tower' (which I've yet to read but intend to buy in the near future).
In short, Lewis - a Ricardian, unsurprisingly - believes that both Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck may well have been the real deal, which explains the highly unusual reaction to them. For example, Simnel was crowned King Edward (crucially, we don't which regnal number was given) in Dublin and supported by various Yorkist nobles, including John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, who was himself a senior Yorkist with an undisputed claim to the throne. Lewis' key argument here is that Lincoln would have known both of the princes, as well as Edward, Earl of Warwick, and so if we assume that Simnel was indeed a fraud then why would he have been crowned in a religious service by the Bishop of Meath, and why would Lincoln - a genuine Plantagenet through his mother - have put aside his own claim and backed Simnel? As we know that Warwick was in the Tower (where he remained until his execution in 1499) we have to assume that Lincoln - and others - either genuinely believed that Simnel was the real Edward V or knew he was a fraud (a doppelganger of either Edward V or Warwick) but chose to use him as a puppet anyway. The latter is the established Tudor version of events, but is very odd when you ask yourself what the point of such a charade would be. Why would Yorkist nobles crown a peasant they intended to later kill or overthrow? Why not just crown Lincoln and unite behind him when he seems to have been one of the chief rebels anyway?
For what it's worth, I'm not a Ricardian and I do think that the most likely scenario is the princes were both dead by the end of 1483. However, the Simnel narrative and the fact that Lincoln and other supporters went on to fight and die at the battle of Stoke Field suggests these people were very serious about their boy.
Likewise, Perkin Warbeck seems a fascinating character and has been in the news again lately as a result of the claims pushed by Philippa Langley, the woman who led the campaign to find the remains of Richard III. It could be argued that if we assume Warbeck was a fraud then he was one of the most convincing conmen in history, as he managed to rally a number of foreign rulers and Yorkist nobles to his banner, and Langley has provided evidence of documents in which he is referred to as a son of Edward IV. Whilst it is true that Edward IV's sister Margaret of Burgundy supported Warbeck and believed him to be her nephew, it is unlikely that she actually ever met either of Edward IV's sons as they were born after Margaret left England to marry Charles the Bold. Therefore, either Margaret genuinely believed Warbeck, or she knew he was a fraud but supported him for political reasons in order to undermine Henry VII - the problem is that we don't know which is the case.
The most interesting aspect of the Warbeck saga is not so much what Warbeck himself said or did, but Henry VII's reaction to him. By all accounts Henry seems to have been genuinely unnerved by Warbeck's presence and influence, and allocated substantial resources towards either silencing him or bringing him back to England for interrogation. What makes this so fascinating is that it does suggest that Henry didn't know for sure that the princes were dead, as had their deaths been an accepted fact and had Henry known where they were buried then he would surely have laughed off Warbeck's outlandish claims. Likewise, Elizabeth of York would surely have been among the first to try to get to the bottom of what happened, and she'd been living in London throughout Richard III's reign and would have been privy to any gossip about her brothers. As far as is known, Elizabeth and Warbeck never met - which is either very interesting or very uninteresting, depending on your point of view, as she would have undoubtedly been the best surviving witness to the brother she grew up with, and her reaction would likely have told Henry all he needed to know. (Conversely, although Edward V and Elizabeth would have been acquainted, they were not close as Edward grew up in Ludlow as Prince of Wales).
If you're not up to speed on the Simnel and Warbeck uprisings then they're well worth reading about. There's no firm evidence either way, and both Richard III and Henry VII had a lot of incriminating documents destroyed (including, I imagine, documents we don't know existed), and of course the Tudors were pretty well-versed in PR. Lewis' view is that the Tudors put a definite spin on what actually happened, and tried to muddy the waters of the Simnel uprising by having him be a pretender to Warwick rather than Edward V, and that the treatment of Warbeck - which included facial disfigurement and a forced confession - seems very strange; as does the fact that Warbeck and Warwick were executed together after an alleged escape attempt.
Of course, it may well be that none of this is important and that the boys did indeed die in 1483. We know that workmen digging in the Tower during the 17th century found the skeletons of two children, but they have never been DNA tested and there's no way to prove whether they are the remains of the princes or not.
What do you think happened? For me, the main problems with the 'Richard III is innocent' theory are:
a) we know Richard killed plenty of people on his way to the throne (Rivers, Grey and Hastings for sure; potentially Henry VI and his son before that) so why not two more?;
b) we know that a lot of people assumed (or knew?) the princes were already dead by 1483;
c) why would Henry Tudor make an oath to marry Elizabeth of York and unite the houses if her brothers are still alive?;
d) if Richard had kept them alive, what did he do with them? where did they go? (possible scenarios: John Evans theory, Richard smuggled abroad/Warbeck theory)
e) what was the October 1483 Buckingham rebellion about? did he turn against Richard because the boys were dead, or did the boys have to die because of such rebellions?
I acknowledge that the claims of people like Lewis and Langley are fascinating and richly-drawn, but I also think the most boring and logical explanation is the most likely: Richard had them killed, and they're the two skeletons found in the 17th century. I do think there are important questions about related events and people's motives, but I also think that if Richard was willing to murder his brother's in-laws and best friend then he'd no qualms about killing his sons if that meant a more secure hold on the throne. Whereas I wouldn't be overly surprised if any of the other theories turns out to be what actually happened (seeing as we lack so little concrete evidence in any direction), I do think it seems likely that the general consensus was that they were dead by the autumn of 1483, as Buckingham's rebellion and the behaviour of the women at court moving towards a Tudor alliance suggests that their hopes now rest with Elizabeth's claim rather than the princes'.
Any thoughts?
I have recently been reading articles and listening to podcast episodes by the author Matt Lewis, who has written a number of books including 'The Survival of the Princes in the Tower' (which I've yet to read but intend to buy in the near future).
In short, Lewis - a Ricardian, unsurprisingly - believes that both Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck may well have been the real deal, which explains the highly unusual reaction to them. For example, Simnel was crowned King Edward (crucially, we don't which regnal number was given) in Dublin and supported by various Yorkist nobles, including John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, who was himself a senior Yorkist with an undisputed claim to the throne. Lewis' key argument here is that Lincoln would have known both of the princes, as well as Edward, Earl of Warwick, and so if we assume that Simnel was indeed a fraud then why would he have been crowned in a religious service by the Bishop of Meath, and why would Lincoln - a genuine Plantagenet through his mother - have put aside his own claim and backed Simnel? As we know that Warwick was in the Tower (where he remained until his execution in 1499) we have to assume that Lincoln - and others - either genuinely believed that Simnel was the real Edward V or knew he was a fraud (a doppelganger of either Edward V or Warwick) but chose to use him as a puppet anyway. The latter is the established Tudor version of events, but is very odd when you ask yourself what the point of such a charade would be. Why would Yorkist nobles crown a peasant they intended to later kill or overthrow? Why not just crown Lincoln and unite behind him when he seems to have been one of the chief rebels anyway?
For what it's worth, I'm not a Ricardian and I do think that the most likely scenario is the princes were both dead by the end of 1483. However, the Simnel narrative and the fact that Lincoln and other supporters went on to fight and die at the battle of Stoke Field suggests these people were very serious about their boy.
Likewise, Perkin Warbeck seems a fascinating character and has been in the news again lately as a result of the claims pushed by Philippa Langley, the woman who led the campaign to find the remains of Richard III. It could be argued that if we assume Warbeck was a fraud then he was one of the most convincing conmen in history, as he managed to rally a number of foreign rulers and Yorkist nobles to his banner, and Langley has provided evidence of documents in which he is referred to as a son of Edward IV. Whilst it is true that Edward IV's sister Margaret of Burgundy supported Warbeck and believed him to be her nephew, it is unlikely that she actually ever met either of Edward IV's sons as they were born after Margaret left England to marry Charles the Bold. Therefore, either Margaret genuinely believed Warbeck, or she knew he was a fraud but supported him for political reasons in order to undermine Henry VII - the problem is that we don't know which is the case.
The most interesting aspect of the Warbeck saga is not so much what Warbeck himself said or did, but Henry VII's reaction to him. By all accounts Henry seems to have been genuinely unnerved by Warbeck's presence and influence, and allocated substantial resources towards either silencing him or bringing him back to England for interrogation. What makes this so fascinating is that it does suggest that Henry didn't know for sure that the princes were dead, as had their deaths been an accepted fact and had Henry known where they were buried then he would surely have laughed off Warbeck's outlandish claims. Likewise, Elizabeth of York would surely have been among the first to try to get to the bottom of what happened, and she'd been living in London throughout Richard III's reign and would have been privy to any gossip about her brothers. As far as is known, Elizabeth and Warbeck never met - which is either very interesting or very uninteresting, depending on your point of view, as she would have undoubtedly been the best surviving witness to the brother she grew up with, and her reaction would likely have told Henry all he needed to know. (Conversely, although Edward V and Elizabeth would have been acquainted, they were not close as Edward grew up in Ludlow as Prince of Wales).
If you're not up to speed on the Simnel and Warbeck uprisings then they're well worth reading about. There's no firm evidence either way, and both Richard III and Henry VII had a lot of incriminating documents destroyed (including, I imagine, documents we don't know existed), and of course the Tudors were pretty well-versed in PR. Lewis' view is that the Tudors put a definite spin on what actually happened, and tried to muddy the waters of the Simnel uprising by having him be a pretender to Warwick rather than Edward V, and that the treatment of Warbeck - which included facial disfigurement and a forced confession - seems very strange; as does the fact that Warbeck and Warwick were executed together after an alleged escape attempt.
Of course, it may well be that none of this is important and that the boys did indeed die in 1483. We know that workmen digging in the Tower during the 17th century found the skeletons of two children, but they have never been DNA tested and there's no way to prove whether they are the remains of the princes or not.
What do you think happened? For me, the main problems with the 'Richard III is innocent' theory are:
a) we know Richard killed plenty of people on his way to the throne (Rivers, Grey and Hastings for sure; potentially Henry VI and his son before that) so why not two more?;
b) we know that a lot of people assumed (or knew?) the princes were already dead by 1483;
c) why would Henry Tudor make an oath to marry Elizabeth of York and unite the houses if her brothers are still alive?;
d) if Richard had kept them alive, what did he do with them? where did they go? (possible scenarios: John Evans theory, Richard smuggled abroad/Warbeck theory)
e) what was the October 1483 Buckingham rebellion about? did he turn against Richard because the boys were dead, or did the boys have to die because of such rebellions?
I acknowledge that the claims of people like Lewis and Langley are fascinating and richly-drawn, but I also think the most boring and logical explanation is the most likely: Richard had them killed, and they're the two skeletons found in the 17th century. I do think there are important questions about related events and people's motives, but I also think that if Richard was willing to murder his brother's in-laws and best friend then he'd no qualms about killing his sons if that meant a more secure hold on the throne. Whereas I wouldn't be overly surprised if any of the other theories turns out to be what actually happened (seeing as we lack so little concrete evidence in any direction), I do think it seems likely that the general consensus was that they were dead by the autumn of 1483, as Buckingham's rebellion and the behaviour of the women at court moving towards a Tudor alliance suggests that their hopes now rest with Elizabeth's claim rather than the princes'.
Any thoughts?
