WI: Princes in the tower escape,post-bosworth

And we've only the records left intact by the H7 and his people to tell us of the boys and when they were seen last.

Nope, there were contemporary records in 1483 believing they were dead. And those records were not all English, some were foreign too. And it existed in 1483 and 1484.

There was an uprising in the Prince's favor in September 1483! After Titulus Regulus was passed! Shows how effective that piece of paper was of securing Richard III's rule. And later on that same year, almost all who participated in the rising switched their support to Henry Tudor as king! Why would they do that if they thought that Edward V was dead? Most of them were Yorkists who were loyal to Edward IV! Why would they support Henry Tudor if they think Edward V was alive?

The fact is, Richard III never once produced the Princes in public in after they were deposed. They just disappeared in 1483.

Why not scotch any rumors that he killed them by producing them in public? Remember the rising of Lambert Simnel who pretended to be the Earl of Warwick? That was easily scotched by Henry VII producing the real Earl of Warwich!

Richard III never once did so. He knew there were rumors that he killed his nephews as early as 1483. He did not do anything to counter those rumors.
 
Elizabeth I sure got her money's worth from Shakespeare, that's for certain. His Richard III (which is playing tonight) blackened R3's name beyond repair in most people's opinion.

Ehh, Shakespeare's Richard III was really just the culmination of the earlier works of Tudor writers (Vergil and More?).
 
Nah, I still think it's Richard III.

The biggest fact was that the princes were never seen alive after 1483. There was not any evidence at all that they were alive in 1484, at all. That was the biggest evidence. Everyone thought that they were dead in 1483. That had nothing to do with Henry VII, who was just a a powerless exile in France. Even Elizabeth Woodville thought them dead. Why did she negotiate with Margaret Beaufort to marry Elizabeth of York to Henry Tudor if she still thinks that her sons were still alive? Why would she support Henry Tudor as king over her own sons?

And Richard did show treachery. When he usurped his nephews. You don't need any propaganda for that. That was the height of treachery. The moment Edward IV died, Edward V was Richard's king, and he committed high treason in deposing them.

Contrast this to Edward, Earl of Warwick, who was shown alive by Richard III, Henry VII, etc, despite to having a superior claim to Henry VII to the throne. Richard III could have easily paraded the princes around in 1484 or 1485 to squash the rumor that he had them killed.

But he didn't. So either they died of natural causes in 1483, or he had them killed.

But to me, they're effectively dead in 1483.

Anyone else think that Maggie B had a role? She was married to Lord Stanley, WANTED her son to be king, and was a diehard Lancastrian. She had means, motive and opportunity. To my mind, the pious, pitiless Countess of Richmond had the most to gain by the princes disappearing.
 
Eh,I don't think so. If you involve too many people in your plot to murder two innocent,defenceless children,it's bound to get out. Anyways,guys. As much as I would like to debate on who had a hand in their killing and when it happened,can we get back to Ideas? I'm thinking of starting the day after bosworth,any advice for my possible tl? Some do's and don'ts?
 
The big question I have is how do they prove they are who they say they are?
There are several people that could positively identify them.
Dominic mancini,a italian who visited england before richard the III captured edward V,from the wikipedia article on the princes in the tower,its apparent he had seen,or even met edward before.
There's also john argentine,a physician who visited edward and richard while they were interned in the tower.
Elizabeth woodville could definitely identify them,and obviously one of their siblings could also.
Lastly,richard and or john de la pole could probably identify them.
 
There are several people that could positively identify them.
Dominic mancini,a italian who visited england before richard the III captured edward V,from the wikipedia article on the princes in the tower,its apparent he had seen,or even met edward before.
There's also john argentine,a physician who visited edward and richard while they were interned in the tower.
Elizabeth woodville could definitely identify them,and obviously one of their siblings could also.
Lastly,richard and or john de la pole could probably identify them.
Alright interesting. Would you have Henry marry Elizabeth of York?
 
Eh,I don't think so. If you involve too many people in your plot to murder two innocent, defenceless children,it's bound to get out. Anyways,guys. As much as I would like to debate on who had a hand in their killing and when it happened,can we get back to Ideas? I'm thinking of starting the day after Bosworth,any advice for my possible tl? Some do's and don'ts?

1. Who is with them? Constable of the Tower? Guards? Priests? Who else is in London? Bishop of London?
2. Presumably they will be paraded through the streets from the Tower, to prove who they are
3. Who is going to speak for them? Or will Edward V try to pull off a Richard II and do it himself?
4. What levies and forces are in London and can be raised in London?
5. Who is around but not engaged? Who of the Fitzalans or Talbots maybe?
 
1: I've already decided upon this,but it would spoil alot of stuff,so i'm keeping it under wraps.
2: ^
3: ^^
4: Judging from the forces the lancasters were able to raise from london on short notice at the first battle of st. albans,2000-ish? Likely more.
5: I have no idea.
 
I think there is rather a lot of assumptions in this - however that's what we are all here for I suppose!

1) Titulus Regius was irrelevant what one Parliament has passed another can repeal. Winners control Parliament - declaring his nephews illegitimate didn't really devalue the threat as they aged that they posed to Richard - he had every reason to want his nephews to stay "disappeared". A woman's right to rule had never been established in England so his nieces arguably proved a lesser threat as long as they were married off to people he trusted or were to low-born to pose a real long-term threat. Richard's claim was weak - 1) Edward IV's children were illegitimate 2) George of Clarence's children excluded due to his attainder (again easibly reversible and in George's case the act didn't deprive them of their rights of succession) - he was like Henry VII always going to be susceptible to rebellion.
2) Don't forget the first rebellion Richard faced was in the name of his nephews - if they were still alive at that point then it was very clear the long-term threat they posed to him.
3) Assuming the very unlikely view that both boys survived their uncle's reign (and i am willing to concede that an abortive rescue attempt might have resulted in at least one of them perhaps being fatally injured) - then where are they on Henry's accession? - still in the Tower - plenty of time for them to be spirited away once news of Richard's defeat reaches London - though of course the main players are all miles away. In that case why not simply parade them through the streets and proclaim Edward V King again??? Tudor would no longer be challenging a tyrant but instead is the liberator of the lawful King etc - it is much harder for him to claim the throne in those circumstances.
If they are in Yorkshire then a quick skip across the sea to Burgundy?? or over the border to Scotland? Either would welcome him with open arms.
4) Whatever happens whoever has custody is going to use them to mount a challenge to Tudor and there will be plenty willing to do so - also his position is suddenly very weak - he claimed the throne by conquest - and may do so again - but the chances of Elizabeth of York rushing to the altar is significantly lower - why would the Pope issue the necessary dispensation with foreign monarchs reminding him the lawful King is reluctant to see his sister wed so poorly etc. Henry's long-term security relied on many of Edward IV's former household retainers and their connections who were happy to support a Henry married to Edward's daughter without them his reign is pretty much in trouble from the start.
5) Edward V will not be a child in 1485 - he will be around 14 and if he resembles his father probably nearly of age to rule in his own name.
 
Anyone else think that Maggie B had a role? She was married to Lord Stanley, WANTED her son to be king, and was a diehard Lancastrian. She had means, motive and opportunity. To my mind, the pious, pitiless Countess of Richmond had the most to gain by the princes disappearing.
She really didn't have the opportunity, though. She's married to Stanley, but Stanley has no more power over the princes than anyone else. Richard wasn't nearly stupid enough to trust the Stanleys with custody over a potential pretender (even before Bosworth, he'd had property disputes with the Stanleys dating back to his days as Duke of Gloucester), and he has no need to involve them.

Really, the attempts to blame someone other than Richard fall down on the basis that no one but Richard or his agents has access to them until after Bosworth, that Richard was already being accused of their murder well before then, and he was unable to produce them to dispel the rumors. Titulus Regis is no more relevant here than the conditions on the Beaufort legitimization had stopped Henry VII from claiming the throne, or from marrying the officially bastardized Elizabeth of York to solidify his claim.

Which is the other issue for this TL: most of Henry VII's supporters were former Yorkists who supported Henry because they opposed Richard III and there was no Yorkist alternative once the Princes "disappeared." ITTL, they likely never support Henry in the first place (as Richard would certainly display their survival to disprove the murder rumors), so even if he somehow still wins, his winning coalition is going to look very different (and be reliant on different people). The core of the Lancastrians had basically been wiped out (aside from a few people like Pembroke) in the debacle of 1470-1 and its aftermath, and the rest (again, aside from that handful of exiled/imprisoned diehards) had made their peace shortly afterwards.
 
I will admit,it is very unlikely the princes in the tower were alive by 1485 (although some historians speculate that they had been kept alive in secret,and henry had them killed in 1486,to remove their potential threat to his throne) But i'm not entirely sure how to get around it,so this timeline will require some slight suspension of disbelief.
Additionally,regarding their location at the time of Bosworth,they will definitely be in the tower.
 
Top