But ... they would have grown up, yes? And known who they were. And the sister knew. I mean, there'd be some evidence of them somewhere, some time when they appeared in the historical record in some way, even if only to renounce any claim on the throne.
I am by no means an expert in the story, but it seems they vanished. And with royals back then (well, anyone, really), that tends to mean dead. And I can't see how it can be of natural causes - so, assassination.
I do wonder if, as with Richard himself, technology and time will reveal what actually happened in my lifetime.
There is a school of thought that believes that Perkin Warbeck was actually one of the princes. He was supported by Margaret of Burgundy, Richard's sister and therefore his aunt. Once caught in England, he was imprisoned and then a somewhat suspect "escape plan" was hatched with Edward, the Earl of Warwick, George's son (and so also Richard's nephew.) Both were caught and executed.
Which sort of brings up the issue of Edward. Being the son of Richard's older brother, his claim to the throne was just as solid as the princes'. They had been declared bastards after it came to light that their father was actually married to someone else when he married their mother, while Edward was tainted by his father's treason. Many think that George, his father, knew of the first marriage, thus his own imprisonment and execution. But while Richard sent Edward to live in Richard's wife's household, when he came to the throne, Henry VII thought him enough of a threat to throw him in the tower.
I mean, I realize not every royal back then had people killed at the drop of a helm. But ...
The Perkin Warbeck thing is interesting. Sometimes you'd really love to be somewhere with technology from now so you could learn the truth about things like that. What if he really WAS Richard? I don't know much about him. I should read up, out of curiosity, to learn what he had to say about himself and his "brother."
It is. No one can really know what happened; you sort of have to go with your gut, as far as what you learn about the character of each person. But I really do wish the bones at Westminster could be tested. Not that it would prove anything, one way or the other, but it would be nice to know.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
gilda_elise) wrote2019-06-19 08:24 am
no subject
I am by no means an expert in the story, but it seems they vanished. And with royals back then (well, anyone, really), that tends to mean dead. And I can't see how it can be of natural causes - so, assassination.
I do wonder if, as with Richard himself, technology and time will reveal what actually happened in my lifetime.
no subject
Which sort of brings up the issue of Edward. Being the son of Richard's older brother, his claim to the throne was just as solid as the princes'. They had been declared bastards after it came to light that their father was actually married to someone else when he married their mother, while Edward was tainted by his father's treason. Many think that George, his father, knew of the first marriage, thus his own imprisonment and execution. But while Richard sent Edward to live in Richard's wife's household, when he came to the throne, Henry VII thought him enough of a threat to throw him in the tower.
no subject
The Perkin Warbeck thing is interesting. Sometimes you'd really love to be somewhere with technology from now so you could learn the truth about things like that. What if he really WAS Richard? I don't know much about him. I should read up, out of curiosity, to learn what he had to say about himself and his "brother."
It's just one of those tantalizing stories.
no subject