I've been watching documentaries on this and am curious to know what people on here think?
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
If they’d allow the bones in Westminster abbey to be exhumed then they could be dna matched now that Richard has been found. It wouldn’t prove he murdered them but it would prove that they died in the tower and were hidden.
Personally I think Richard did have a hand in it, the timeline seems to fit that narrative. Henry Tudor never looked for them as their claim to the throne far outweighed his. Perkin Warbreck was an imposter and I think there were possibly others.
Personally I think Richard did have a hand in it, the timeline seems to fit that narrative. Henry Tudor never looked for them as their claim to the throne far outweighed his. Perkin Warbreck was an imposter and I think there were possibly others.
It would answer so many questions, but for me it would resolve the Perkin Warbeck question once and for all. There were a couple other imposters from what I read, however if he truly was an imposter and not Richard then why did he look so much like Edward IV? How did he gain so much support? I've also heard that even after denouncing him as a fraud, Henry VII had him buried in a royal cemetery of some sort that was only reserved for royals... why would he do that if he was a fake? I'd definitely have less doubts if the bones were exhumed.
I always thought Warbreck was Flemish ? Edward IV was a notorious womaniser, there would have been several illegitimate children. I’ve often wondered if the bones found under the staircase were not the princes then who were they and why were they hidden ? The tower had a graveyard. There was no clothing or jewellery that could have helped their identification.
There’s no record of Elizabeth of York’s reaction to Warbreck, I’ve always wondered if she believed he was her brother.
There’s no record of Elizabeth of York’s reaction to Warbreck, I’ve always wondered if she believed he was her brother.
I dont think he did. Why would he? His own son and wife were dead and he was already king. If hed had another child, the throne would pass to him/ her and if not, it would have gone to the Princes and stayed Yorkist. I think Henry Tudor had a hand in it somehow. He had everything to gain from their deaths.
Yeah would have loved to know what she thought about it all, but let's face it even if she thought it was her brother she wouldn't have been allowed to mention it. The flemish part is from the fraud story so could be true/could be not true. It's just weird that he would be taken in by margaret of burgundy if he was a stranger, I mean if she wanted to find a boy to threaten H's rule why not use one of her sister's kids who's identity couldn't be questioned even if they were from the female line..
Just looked it up Perkin was buried at Austin Friars in London amongst noblemen, if he was a lowly flemish common fraud why bury him there? why not dump him in a communal grave with others of lowly birth?
exactly if the bones in the tower aren't the princes then who are they?
- also he could possibly have been an illegitemate child
Pretty sure they vanished before his son and wife died but I mean that could be a viable alternative.
Last edited:
The princes were before Richard in line for the throne.
Richard was the boy’s ‘protector’ and they were sent to the Tower to prepare for Edward Vs coronation, which obviously never happened.
There’s also rumours about Margaret Beaufort, she was determined that Henry would be king that nothing would stand in her way
Yeah but I was thinking after he was dead he had no heirs. It would have been easier to keep them alive in the Tower and name them as his heirs. I suspect Margaret Beaufort too. Also The Tudors went to great lengths afterwards to demonize Richard III. The Tudors claim to the Throne was wafer thin to say the least! Henry Viii's claim is stronger through his mother than his father. But then again they were all murdering bastards who tried to kill each other to get their grubby paws on the Throne so every monarch until now is only there through a twist of fate/ ancestors that were better warmongers than others or because they were the right religion! Hardly the Divine Right of Kings! I love talking about the Tudors and the Plantaganets sorry
same I also think it could have been margaret, she was so coniving always switching her loyalties always looking to see what could benefit her and her son..Yeah but I was thinking after he was dead he had no heirs. It would have been easier to keep them alive in the Tower and name them as his heirs. I suspect Margaret Beaufort too. Also The Tudors went to great lengths afterwards to demonize Richard III. The Tudors claim to the Throne was wafer thin to say the least! Henry Viii's claim is stronger through his mother than his father. But then again they were all murdering bastards who tried to kill each other to get their grubby paws on the Throne so every monarch until now is only there through a twist of fate/ ancestors that were better warmongers than others or because they were the right religion! Hardly the Divine Right of Kings! I love talking about the Tudors and the Plantaganets sorry
I read something once about Prince Richard having a lazy eye and Perkin also having one which is why some believed him. No idea how true that is ???
Jaquetta Woodville is my something G Grandmother. I was very impressed by this until I read that 1/4 people in England have Plantagenet ancestry. Put my claim to the throne into perspective !!!
Jaquetta Woodville is my something G Grandmother. I was very impressed by this until I read that 1/4 people in England have Plantagenet ancestry. Put my claim to the throne into perspective !!!
oh interesting couple that with e4'S looks and a royal education and you've got a winning combination..
My son is year 7 and he did get obsessed with them
I was reading 'The Hollow Crown' at the same time as he was doing the Wars of the Rose's. The rest of the family were a bit like 
also it's really interesting that Edward earl of warwick had a better claim then richard III and wasn't the target of an assasination attempt.My son is year 7 and he did get obsessed with them
Oh my this is my thread and you are my people!
I wish they'd test the bones found so we could know once and for all. Whilst I don't believe everything that is written about Richard lll as the tudors and Shakespeare tainted him I think he killed those boys to gain the throne. Wasnt there something about him trying to marry Elizabeth, his neice, or a Spanish princess. He probably thought he had time to create his own heirs.
I wish they'd test the bones found so we could know once and for all. Whilst I don't believe everything that is written about Richard lll as the tudors and Shakespeare tainted him I think he killed those boys to gain the throne. Wasnt there something about him trying to marry Elizabeth, his neice, or a Spanish princess. He probably thought he had time to create his own heirs.
Hiii welcome! I personally don't doubt wether or not Richard killed them as much as I doubt that Perkin Warbeck was a fraud. In regards to wether or not he killed them I think it makes sense but of course there's room for ambiguity there and as we've seen the tudors exagerated his hump when it wasn't that pronounced for example. And see what you bring up is interesting because from what I heard he briefly considered marrying his niece himself-unlike her mother Elizabeth was at least friendly with her uncle (he gave her two books when she came to court that some think could be a metaphor for their rumored romance). However that idea got shut down by his council and somehow a rumor started about them and he had to publicly deny it. Also he planned to bethrothe E to a portuguese prince I think and he was to marry a chaste Portuguese princess which some say makes no sense because she was too chaste/ended up in a nunnery (not sure about that one).
Yes, you are correct, But Edwards father was the Duke of Clarence whom had been executed. Another part of the punishment (if being executed wasn't apparently bad enough) is that he had an Act of Attainder placed upon him by parliament stripping Clarence and descendants of his place in the succession, so Warwick by law couldn't become King. Of course, there are always ways around this.......
yeah knew there was something like that in place but then why did H7 have him killed/locked in the tower because he was such a threat
I think Edward of Warwick was gaining some support and then he was eventually killed for conspiring with perkin. Edward of Warwick is such a sad story... And his sister, didn't she get married to some nobody?
His death is so sad honestly he was psychologically damaged due to being imprisoned in the tower his whole life basically and thought to not be a threat because he was viewed as - slow and that's why I hate H7. H7 married his sister to his half cousin on his mother's side - a man of much lower birth and H8 had her executed which turned out to be the most horrific execution ever. (she was hacked to death by a novice and wouldn't lie still)