#Richard of Shrewsbury

[gwydpolls]

Time Travel Question : Murder and Disappearance Edition I

Given that Judge Crater, Roanoke, and the Dyatlov Pass Incident are credibly solved, though not 100% provable, I'm leaving them out in favor of things ,ore mysterious. I almost left out Amelia Earhart, but the evidence there is sketchier.

Some people were a little confused. Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury are the Princes in the Tower.

[historicconfessions]

[royal-confessions]

“I hope King Charles III will allow new research into murder of the York Princes. Like are there actually aditional burried bodies beside Edward IV or not? Are bodies found in 1674 in Tower them? And if so, how did they die? So many unanswered questions, but so many fans which would love it for King Charles to give us some answers.” - Submitted by Anonymous

[richmond-rex]

A big ask I know. But what is some evidence that the documentary conveniently ignored to push their survival narrative?

Evidence of the death of the princes is much less conclusive, because the only contemporary evidence we have are several chroniclers abroad and in England & Wales stating that the princes were murdered or were believed to have been murdered. There is more evidence that Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck were impostors, though. From the top of my head: the Sétubal testimonies confessing Warbeck was not Richard of Shrewsbury, Maximilian I's own 1488 admission to Henry VII claiming he was duped by Margaret of York into backing an impostor (only to do the same again four years later), Perkin Warbeck's letter asking his mother in Tournai for money to pay his expenses in prison in England, and comments by foreign ambassadors who understood the situation was simply international politics.

For more precise scrutinising of the evidence on Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck I really recommend Nathen Amin's Henry VII and the Tudor Pretenders. He never explicitly says his opinion but the evidence he presents clearly points to a logical conclusion.

Now, one truly has to ask why Langley & co decided to discard their earlier Da Vinci code theory that Edward V lived out his days as John Evans in a small Devon village and instead chose to go with the by now often beaten theory that Lambert Simnel was Edward V. It doesn't make sense because those symbols/glass panels were the only genuine new evidence they found (even if imo it's not conclusive to Edward V's survival). The rest was already known since the 1950s.

[i-love-books-because-reasons]

Richard III & the Princes in the Tower | Facial Re-Creations & History Documentary | Royalty Now

[high-quality-tiktoks]

Im still not sure it will happen but how cool would that be?

[alilyamongroses]

Edward V chilling in Essex after Uncle Dickie’s failed assassination attempt

[ricardian-werewolf]

@fairytaleromancing -

Period piece; the white princess:

He's Richard of Shrewsbury!

#softly but with feeling #what the f

[stonelord1]

A RED ROSE FOR CHELSEA

After he became King, Richard III leased the Manor of Chelsea to the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk for a red rose given each Midsummer. The Dowager Duchess was Elizabeth Talbot, the sister of Eleanor Talbot, Edward IV‘s secret wife. Elizabeth (and Eleanor) were also full 1st cousins to Richard’s wife, Anne Neville. Elizabeth, who had not been treated particularly well by Edward with his ‘land grab’…

[blackboar]

wasn't there a theory a while ago that one of the princes (richard i think) became a brick layer because this particular worker was recorded as speaking latin? and so he was too educated for his social rank?

I never heard of it, sorry. Nonetheless, I don't buy that theory.

[the-invisible-queer]

New post about the Princes in the Tower!

Check it out! Or don't. I can't tell you what to do.

[historicconfessions]

[royal-confessions]

“too many people are obsessed with the tale of the "princes of the tower" and their plight not even realizing the entire idea of the infantilized princes in the tower who just disappeared is propaganda that's pro-Richard. They were a usurped king and his brother, not just two missing princelings.” - Submitted by Anonymous

[snapheart1536]

So what's the new evidence anyway?

Summing up the 'new evidence' about the Princes in the Tower

1. They found Maximilian of Austria's receipt (for the payment of pikes) calling Lambert Simnel Edward IV's son instead of Edward IV's nephew (Warwick) so that would somehow prove Edward V survived. They try to convince us into trusting the word of a ruler who by his own admission in 1488 claimed he was duped by his mother-in-law into supporting a fake prince and then four years later did exactly the same thing again.

2. They also ask us to believe in a survival account provided by Perkin Warbeck because it's so detailed it's 'compelling', but they won't accept the same from Thomas More, for example, regardless of how detailed or how many names are provided in More's account (the good old picking and choosing).

3. They present a 'Richard' signature which is supposedly such a bold statement in itself it could only be the real name of the person who wrote it, as if the man pretending to be Richard of Shrewsbury would ever sign his documents with any other name.

These are truly abysmally poor arguments. It's like John Reeks said: this is not history, this is a PR campaign dashed with a side of intellectual dishonesty. If your argument can't be supported by real solid evidence it's not history, it's wishful thinking.

[poetessinthepit]

Me on a date: what do you think happened to the princes in the tower after the summer of 1483?

[wishesofeternity]

“Much has been written on the extent and effects of the Woodville influence on Edward of Westminster [Edward V], but the nature of his mother's [Elizabeth Woodville's] role has usually been overlooked, or subsumed into the general picture of her family's activities. Initially her position was probably the most prominent in his household. She was the only member of his original 1471 council not already on the king's council and her name headed the list of those appointed as administrators in Wales during Edward's minority. It was, therefore, not only with the queen's 'assent' that the council (or four of them) made their decisions, but with her 'advise and exp[re]se consent', and this included nominating the prince's officers when posts became void. The interests of many of Prince Edward's council were not primarily focused on their role in this council, so ten new members were assigned prior to the prince's departure for Ludlow in 1473, among them the queen's cousin Richard Haute and her confessor, Edward Story. Lowe has argued that of the twenty-five members of this council, only fourteen were fully active, the three principal members being the queen, Rivers, and Haute, and that of the remaining eleven, at least eight had prior connections with the Woodvilles. The queen was one of the three members to hold a key to the prince's treasury; she travelled with him to Ludlow and she, along with the prince's other councillors, appears to have been the 'driving force' behind efforts to restore peace in the area by punishing those responsible for disorders in the previous autumn. Elizabeth, 'oure Sovereigne and Liege Lady the Quene', presided over the commission to hear trials in Hereford with the infant prince until the king himself arrived."

- J.L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503