Is "post Conquestum" not just the usual reference to the Norman Conquest in relation to regnal numbering? Though admittedly it seems redundant in Richard's case, as there had been no kings named Richard before the Conquest.
Oh, that’s a really good alternative explanation. Highly appreciate it. Thank you. I don’t know and have to check. I pin this comment to make sure everybody sees it.
The formula “after the Conquest” was standard until this era. Henry VII could, of course, if he had wanted, have used it of himself, but not Richard, who had staged an internal coup. Because of the formula despite there being eleven English Kings called Edward only the more recent eight get a number.
Henry VII gained the crown by right of conquest, and he had his coronation relatively quickly. He then married Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Edward IV, and she would have had the strongest right to the crown if the two princes, and all siblings, were legitimate. The Tudor right to the throne was now supported by both Henry's right of conquest and Elizabeth's right of inheritance. At the time, this was all the reality anyone needed to know, and all that mattered.
It was a member of the church a bishop no less who came forward as having performed the pre-contract with Edward and Eleanor Talbot. Eleanor Talbot was still alive when Edward married Elizabeth Woodville making him a bigamist and that would make the marriage invalid.
I blame a lot of what happened back than on Elizabeth Woodville. She waited to meet the new King, Edward IV to ask for his help to retrieve her lost property from her late husband's mother. Now I wonder why did the mother in law take the property from her daughter in law? Why didn't Elizabeth's husband have a will stating that it should be left to his wife and two sons. Kind of weird to me. And why didn't Elizabeth go through the courts to regain said property. She waited for the new king, and played him like a fine fiddle. Getting him to marry her a commoner. And once Queen she made sure her family members were married to the riches of England's nobles. Another aspect of what she did that is strange. And when her husband was dying he named Richard his brother as protector of his eldest son not his wife nor any of her family. His brother Richard, whom Edward knew to be an honest, religious man. But after the burial of the King. What does Elizabeth do, grabs the Royal treasury and her children except her eldest son and goes into Sanctuary. But sends a message to her brother who was looking after her eldest son to bring him to London immediately to be crowned. Knowing it was Richard who had been named protector of the boy. Then there was the rumors of Elizabeth's eldest daughter and Richard, which I believe was started by Elizabeth Woodville. Then plotting with Margaret Beaufort to marry their two children. Suddenly the princes in the tower had vanished. I believe with Margaret's husband's help they got the boys out or maybe only one of them and sent them to their Aunt Margaret of Burgundy. And placing in a makeshift grave under some stairs claiming they were Edward IV's sons lead people to believe Richard had killed them. Elizabeth Woodville was a power hungry woman, she marries her eldest daughter to Henry Tudor while plotting with Margaret of Burgundy to place her son upon the throne, not caring how it would destroy her daughter and her children. As long as she got her power back she did not care who got hurt in the process.
Two minutes in, and I going yes, yes, yes. My passion is history, but that is a hobby. My day job is a family lawyer. Only a court (or possibly act of Parliament) can declare a marriage invalid. As Mary 1 showed - what one Parliament does another can undo. For the 2 princes to be legally illegitimate a court would have had to declare their parents’ marriage invalid. Richard did not ever attempt to do this.
Yes it mattered because by the laws of succession any heir to the throne must be born within marriage. I'm not saying the lads were illegitimate. I am saying that to question whether or not it would have mattered at the time and indeed today is just plain erroneous. It would have mattered and it still does.
Prior to her wedding to Henry vii, Elizabeth wood ville said,to paraphrase,there was no way in earth she was marrying Henry. Without that marriage he had a far weaker claim on the throne. But the princes then had a far stronger claim.
I think you mixed up Elizabeth of York with her mother Elizabeth Woodville. Henry‘s claim was right to conquest legally speaking. not inheritance. The marriage strengthened the claim informally.
@@HistoryDocumentary150 sorry,yes Elizabeth of York. Sister to the princes in the tower. But her opinion of the marriage is true,as per "the men who made Henry VIII by Tracy norman". Shows a different side to the princes in the tower,as does Henry's treatment of perkin warbeck
Part of the reason that Mary and Elizabeth were able to ascend to the throne was due to the Passage of the Wills Act of 1540, which changed the rights of Inheritance, permitting Devise by Will, rather than Devise (or inheritance) by Primogeniture, which permitted the testator to pass land on to illegitimate inheritors. So its not directly comparable to the situation of Edward V.
If there was no pre contract, why the secret wedding and no fancy celebrating after. Anne Boelyn who once declared the wedding to be of true matter and a second big wedding afterwards
@Chipoo88 but the point still stands why didn't Edward make a celebration of his wedding he was king and therefore the highest authority in the land Not doing so showed he had something to hide something George if Clarence tried to fraught when working with Wsrwick was trying to remove Edward of the throne
@@RhosynGwyn that so the point. He didn’t want to advertise the marriage whilst Warwick was negotiating with the French and he wanted to tell them when he felt it was right.
@Chipoo88 so why didn't he he was married for * checks * 19 years with Edward being on the throne for ten years surely on those ten years after he put down George and Warwick he could put out the banners even if just to mark his legacy after George tried to say he was an archers son
I wonder what would have happened if Edward V was of legal age? I think the necessary age was 18? If he was barely of age he would still be very young and would likely have been seen as weak. I wonder if such a young king would have been immediately challenged on the battlefield? It sounds to me that after the destructive Wars of the Roses, some decisive moves were taken to ensure a strong king was in charge. I think whatever Richard did must have been gauged to save the kingdom from further carnage and basically civil war.
I am not sure I agree with it. There was the Buckingham rebellion only a few months after his ascension. And he was forcefully deposed after 26 months on the throne. Henry VIII was not even 18 when he came to the throne and wasn't immediately challenged. And Richard did nothing he couldn't have done as Lord Protector as well.
I think if Edward V would have been in the legal age he would have become king and Richard III would never had become king of England. It was a wild time back then and since Efward V was a Yorkist/ Woodville king it may have come to another battle with the Lancastrians and France/ Scottland, or a new episode of the war of the roses.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth century monarchs were likely to be assumed to be of age around 15. Edward VI died just as he reached that age. By 1837 it was recognised, as it still is, as being 18. Everyone else had to wait until 21, unless, as with some nobles, they were allowed to be deemed of age a year or two earlier. The standard age of majority was not altered from 21 to 18 until the late 1960s. For hereditary Peers it still is 21.
When Edward the young king chastised Richard for arresting his mother's brother, Richard had little choice but to seize the crown if he wanted to stay alive. The kings mother would certainly have used the incident to displace him as regent and his life would then be on a short tether. It was how things were done back then. If the king had went along with the regents decision and stood by hos father's family rather than his mother's, things would have turned out much differently. That is if It really was Richard who killed them. The Tudor had more motive.
Richard has much motive as Henry. He couldn’t declare them illegitimate. Did you watch the video? This is a position I realised about 20 years ago when I started looking into the actual facts and that only a church court could rule on Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage.
@brontewcat I watched it and I'm not saying Richard didn't have them killed, he may have. At the very least, he knew someone else was going to and did nothing to stop it. There are many questions surrounding their disappearance, and I'm not prepared to believe Tudor propaganda on anything. But here's my question...if you are a Yorkist, who do you want fighting the Welch usurper when he turns up at Bosworth? Richard, who is a proven warrior, and honestly, if he had been less eager to do battle, he would have won that day, or Edward the 11 year old king? Richard had to take the throne. A child king would have been dispatched by Tudor rapidly.
Yes, because unlike today, they didn't really have a clear demarcation line between married and unmarried. Today, there's a ceremony and you clearly know you're not married before it, but married after it. Back then, once 2 people were "pre-contracted", they were kind of married. From the church's standpoint, they could consumate the marriage and the actual marriage ceremony could be done at a later date. There was this grey area where it could be argued 2 people were/were not married. The ceremony was optional or it could be done with just 2 people taking the oaths in front of at least 2 witnesses, without any priest or state representative conducting a ceremony.
@@octavianpopescu4776 also having as many witnesses as possible makes it difficult to deny a marriage, especially if they are unrelated to either party.
King Henry VII legitimized the marriage of King Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, thus making their children legitimate. If anyone thought that the Princes were really alive at that point, King Henry VII would've had to defer the throne to King Edward V.
He didn’t legitimize the marriage. Just like Richard couldn’t delegitimize it, he couldn’t legitimize it. He had titulus regius revoked. This reinstated the right of the kids to inherit. there was no crown to inherit since Henry had won it on the battlefield. Parliament acknowledged him as the lawful king by right of conquest. If Edward was alive he didn’t had a claim to the throne. Same for Richard. Englands kings and queens rule with consent of their people represented by parliament. If parliament decides to give it to someone else, this is it. in reality Edward V probably would have tried to win it on the battlefield. And if he had done so, propaganda would have pointed out it was gods will since he was the son of Edward IV. Legally parliament would have made a law that he is king now.
@@HistoryDocumentary150 thank you for fact checking me. Is it your opinion that Richard just went around saying that the marriage was illegitimate and people went along with it?
Awesome. ❤❤❤ I wonder if edward really had a pre contact with Eleanor butler before Marrying Elizabeth Woodville. Or it was Richard 's ambition to take the throne .
My best guess is that a 18 to 20 year old Edward IV told women everything to get to be with them. And I don’t doubt that he bragged afterwards to his mates. The most surprising thing for me is that Richard didn’t already know.
Thank you for another very interesting video topic! Was there a wedding contract with Eleanor Butler or wasn't? I think it is 50 / 50. I come to this conclusion, because of Edward IV secret marriage with the widow Elizabeth Woodville. She too was a widow and Edward IV wanted her as his mistress and to get her, he had to marry her. So obviously Edward IV liked widows, ladys that already had been marrid and so some experiences.... And they had enough experiences to not just jump into his arms. On the other hand the Eleanor Butler story looks so very like the story of Elizabeth Woodville.... And obviously the whole court wasn't happy about Edward IV marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. So if there was a contract, pre contract with Eleanor Butler, I bet Edward IV had sex with her what would have made the contract valid. If there was a valid contract it would have mattered, also for the church, or especially for the church. Would they have believed it? If a bishop said so - I assume yes. A bishop is one of them. But the church was never asked. And that is fact. Now back then all the people knew Edward IV and all his mistresses..... So it didn't sounded too crazy. And Edward V was a child king.... Also it seems to me that the other noble families didn't liked the Woodvilles too much. No Woodville king, much less Woodvilles around in court, I guess. And right obviously they all, including Richard III, they had no time to ask the church and have a long court trial about the case. Bastard or not? I guess if Edward V would have been at legal age he simply would have become king of England. Hnestly I think Richard would have stayed Duke of Gloucester, Lord of the north. Every king needed a strong man to control the north and fight against the Scotts. So I too think bastards or not, as long as the two princes did exist and a Woodville was alive, Richard III wasn't safe. The Woodvilles would have tried to free the princes and start a rebellion as often as they could. So to have the two princes in the Tower in London and leave the city for a longer journey around seems to me no good idea.... I think Richard III had to secretly remove them from the tower out of England or.... And he could not tell openly that he had send the princes to Burgundy or where ever or that they died.... So he keept quiet abot them. I would love to know what John Argentine, Edward V physician could tell....or the teacher of the princes, John Giles. Till when did they got payed for there serice? And when did the service ended? Wehen did they really no longer visited the princes in the tower?
He (Richard) imho definitely was responsible for the Princes deaths...but I understand why he did them away...they (the princes) were under the influences of the Rivers family and he would never have been safe thereafter...so do them to death...claim the throne by whatever means and live...but we know that plan didn't quite work out thanks to the events of Bosworth Field
Did what? I don't know if he killed the kids, but he's definitely responsible for it, since it would have happened on his watch and I don't know of him ordering any investigation or taking any measures to prove they were still alive. So, even if someone else did it, he clearly was satisfied with the 2 princes being out of the picture. I'd count that as a tacit approval.
not sure...the pretenders..Warbeck I believe was Prince Richard, Prince Edward having died in prison, the two skeletons were poor imposters. I have only my gut instinct on this. Elizabeth of York could have been adamant, bad wasn't. Henry VII, even paraded Warbeck as the missing Richard...initially. Tudors were usurpers.
You claim that it was within the competence of Parliament, to decide that Richard had the right to the crown. I wonder of this was so. For Parliament to have the competence to decide if Richard had that right. It must follow that it had the competence to reject Richard's right to the crown. And I don't think that it did. As you rightly say, Parliament was summoned by, or in the name of the King. ( After his Coronation, that was Richard, the rolls were read, in his name and for Titulus Regius to become law, it had to have his consent, as monarch. However, if it was to reject Titulus Regius, this would imply that Richard was not King, by right, and that he had no right to summon Parliament, but that therefore the Parliament that had answered his summons, was itself no Parliament. The fact that the Members had answered his summons, meant that they could not reject his right to be King, they could only give consent, to confirm what had already happened, not decide competence.
What you describe is the contradictive nature of the English system. And we had cases where your scenario basically happened - for example the deposition of Edward II and Richard II. They found workarounds in "convincing" the respective monarch to surrender the crown. But both didn't live very long afterwards, which says a lot. If the parliament would have refused Titulus Regius it would have accepted Richard as man who was seen as the legitimate king for a time. That's why Edward V is counted.
If there was no pre contract, why the secret wedding and no fancy celebrating after. Anne Boelyn who once declared the wedding to be of true matter and a second big wedding afterwards
Secret Weddings might have been unusual, but they weren't unknown. Edward's Great-Great Grandfather also was secretly married. Given Richard Neville's opposition to, and Cecily Neville's apparent distaste for Elizabeth, one possibility is that Edward knew very well, that he was expected to marry in line with his station and his title, and then he decided that he didn't want to.
Is "post Conquestum" not just the usual reference to the Norman Conquest in relation to regnal numbering? Though admittedly it seems redundant in Richard's case, as there had been no kings named Richard before the Conquest.
Oh, that’s a really good alternative explanation. Highly appreciate it. Thank you. I don’t know and have to check. I pin this comment to make sure everybody sees it.
The formula “after the Conquest” was standard until this era. Henry VII could, of course, if he had wanted, have used it of himself, but not Richard, who had staged an internal coup. Because of the formula despite there being eleven English Kings called Edward only the more recent eight get a number.
Henry VII gained the crown by right of conquest, and he had his coronation relatively quickly. He then married Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Edward IV, and she would have had the strongest right to the crown if the two princes, and all siblings, were legitimate. The Tudor right to the throne was now supported by both Henry's right of conquest and Elizabeth's right of inheritance. At the time, this was all the reality anyone needed to know, and all that mattered.
The more I've researched Richard III, the more i wonder how the Ricardians of "The Richard III society" can defend his character.
Agreed.
Absolutely
It was a member of the church a bishop no less who came forward as having performed the pre-contract with Edward and Eleanor Talbot. Eleanor Talbot was still alive when Edward married Elizabeth Woodville making him a bigamist and that would make the marriage invalid.
Wasn't Richard the only one who refused the pension by King Louie while other nobles and Edward himself jumped at it?
Yes. I read he viewed the pension as a bribe.
I blame a lot of what happened back than on Elizabeth Woodville. She waited to meet the new King, Edward IV to ask for his help to retrieve her lost property from her late husband's mother. Now I wonder why did the mother in law take the property from her daughter in law? Why didn't Elizabeth's husband have a will stating that it should be left to his wife and two sons. Kind of weird to me. And why didn't Elizabeth go through the courts to regain said property. She waited for the new king, and played him like a fine fiddle. Getting him to marry her a commoner. And once Queen she made sure her family members were married to the riches of England's nobles. Another aspect of what she did that is strange. And when her husband was dying he named Richard his brother as protector of his eldest son not his wife nor any of her family. His brother Richard, whom Edward knew to be an honest, religious man. But after the burial of the King. What does Elizabeth do, grabs the Royal treasury and her children except her eldest son and goes into Sanctuary. But sends a message to her brother who was looking after her eldest son to bring him to London immediately to be crowned. Knowing it was Richard who had been named protector of the boy. Then there was the rumors of Elizabeth's eldest daughter and Richard, which I believe was started by Elizabeth Woodville. Then plotting with Margaret Beaufort to marry their two children. Suddenly the princes in the tower had vanished. I believe with Margaret's husband's help they got the boys out or maybe only one of them and sent them to their Aunt Margaret of Burgundy. And placing in a makeshift grave under some stairs claiming they were Edward IV's sons lead people to believe Richard had killed them.
Elizabeth Woodville was a power hungry woman, she marries her eldest daughter to Henry Tudor while plotting with Margaret of Burgundy to place her son upon the throne, not caring how it would destroy her daughter and her children. As long as she got her power back she did not care who got hurt in the process.
Two minutes in, and I going yes, yes, yes.
My passion is history, but that is a hobby. My day job is a family lawyer. Only a court (or possibly act of Parliament) can declare a marriage invalid. As Mary 1 showed - what one Parliament does another can undo.
For the 2 princes to be legally illegitimate a court would have had to declare their parents’ marriage invalid. Richard did not ever attempt to do this.
Yes it mattered because by the laws of succession any heir to the throne must be born within marriage. I'm not saying the lads were illegitimate. I am saying that to question whether or not it would have mattered at the time and indeed today is just plain erroneous. It would have mattered and it still does.
The bishop was not from the north of England he was the Bishop Stllington of Bath and Wells.
Prior to her wedding to Henry vii, Elizabeth wood ville said,to paraphrase,there was no way in earth she was marrying Henry. Without that marriage he had a far weaker claim on the throne. But the princes then had a far stronger claim.
I think you mixed up Elizabeth of York with her mother Elizabeth Woodville. Henry‘s claim was right to conquest legally speaking. not inheritance. The marriage strengthened the claim informally.
@@HistoryDocumentary150 sorry,yes Elizabeth of York. Sister to the princes in the tower. But her opinion of the marriage is true,as per "the men who made Henry VIII by Tracy norman". Shows a different side to the princes in the tower,as does Henry's treatment of perkin warbeck
Part of the reason that Mary and Elizabeth were able to ascend to the throne was due to the Passage of the Wills Act of 1540, which changed the rights of Inheritance, permitting Devise by Will, rather than Devise (or inheritance) by Primogeniture, which permitted the testator to pass land on to illegitimate inheritors. So its not directly comparable to the situation of Edward V.
If there was no pre contract, why the secret wedding and no fancy celebrating after. Anne Boelyn who once declared the wedding to be of true matter and a second big wedding afterwards
Because Elizabeth woodville was not considered a suitable bride and the king was expected to make a good foreign match to gain political advantage
@Chipoo88 but the point still stands why didn't Edward make a celebration of his wedding he was king and therefore the highest authority in the land Not doing so showed he had something to hide something George if Clarence tried to fraught when working with Wsrwick was trying to remove Edward of the throne
@@RhosynGwyn that so the point. He didn’t want to advertise the marriage whilst Warwick was negotiating with the French and he wanted to tell them when he felt it was right.
@Chipoo88 so why didn't he he was married for * checks * 19 years with Edward being on the throne for ten years surely on those ten years after he put down George and Warwick he could put out the banners even if just to mark his legacy after George tried to say he was an archers son
@@RhosynGwyn sorry, I don’t understand your meaning
I wonder what would have happened if Edward V was of legal age? I think the necessary age was 18? If he was barely of age he would still be very young and would likely have been seen as weak. I wonder if such a young king would have been immediately challenged on the battlefield?
It sounds to me that after the destructive Wars of the Roses, some decisive moves were taken to ensure a strong king was in charge. I think whatever Richard did must have been gauged to save the kingdom from further carnage and basically civil war.
I am not sure I agree with it. There was the Buckingham rebellion only a few months after his ascension. And he was forcefully deposed after 26 months on the throne. Henry VIII was not even 18 when he came to the throne and wasn't immediately challenged. And Richard did nothing he couldn't have done as Lord Protector as well.
I think if Edward V would have been in the legal age he would have become king and Richard III would never had become king of England. It was a wild time back then and since Efward V was a Yorkist/ Woodville king it may have come to another battle with the Lancastrians and France/ Scottland, or a new episode of the war of the roses.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth century monarchs were likely to be assumed to be of age around 15. Edward VI died just as he reached that age. By 1837 it was recognised, as it still is, as being 18. Everyone else had to wait until 21, unless, as with some nobles, they were allowed to be deemed of age a year or two earlier. The standard age of majority was not altered from 21 to 18 until the late 1960s. For hereditary Peers it still is 21.
When Edward the young king chastised Richard for arresting his mother's brother, Richard had little choice but to seize the crown if he wanted to stay alive.
The kings mother would certainly have used the incident to displace him as regent and his life would then be on a short tether.
It was how things were done back then.
If the king had went along with the regents decision and stood by hos father's family rather than his mother's, things would have turned out much differently.
That is if It really was Richard who killed them. The Tudor had more motive.
Richard has much motive as Henry. He couldn’t declare them illegitimate.
Did you watch the video? This is a position I realised about 20 years ago when I started looking into the actual facts and that only a church court could rule on Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage.
@brontewcat I watched it and I'm not saying Richard didn't have them killed, he may have. At the very least, he knew someone else was going to and did nothing to stop it.
There are many questions surrounding their disappearance, and I'm not prepared to believe Tudor propaganda on anything.
But here's my question...if you are a Yorkist, who do you want fighting the Welch usurper when he turns up at Bosworth? Richard, who is a proven warrior, and honestly, if he had been less eager to do battle, he would have won that day, or Edward the 11 year old king?
Richard had to take the throne. A child king would have been dispatched by Tudor rapidly.
Back then the declaration of illegitimacy was thrown around like confetti.
Yes, because unlike today, they didn't really have a clear demarcation line between married and unmarried. Today, there's a ceremony and you clearly know you're not married before it, but married after it. Back then, once 2 people were "pre-contracted", they were kind of married. From the church's standpoint, they could consumate the marriage and the actual marriage ceremony could be done at a later date. There was this grey area where it could be argued 2 people were/were not married. The ceremony was optional or it could be done with just 2 people taking the oaths in front of at least 2 witnesses, without any priest or state representative conducting a ceremony.
@@octavianpopescu4776 also having as many witnesses as possible makes it difficult to deny a marriage, especially if they are unrelated to either party.
Princes in the tower this, princes in the tower that. It's never the infant princess of Wales in the abbey at Sempringham
Or the Pearl of Brittany in Corfe Castle.
King Henry VII legitimized the marriage of King Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, thus making their children legitimate. If anyone thought that the Princes were really alive at that point, King Henry VII would've had to defer the throne to King Edward V.
He didn’t legitimize the marriage. Just like Richard couldn’t delegitimize it, he couldn’t legitimize it. He had titulus regius revoked. This reinstated the right of the kids to inherit. there was no crown to inherit since Henry had won it on the battlefield. Parliament acknowledged him as the lawful king by right of conquest. If Edward was alive he didn’t had a claim to the throne. Same for Richard.
Englands kings and queens rule with consent of their people represented by parliament. If parliament decides to give it to someone else, this is it. in reality Edward V probably would have tried to win it on the battlefield. And if he had done so, propaganda would have pointed out it was gods will since he was the son of Edward IV. Legally parliament would have made a law that he is king now.
@@HistoryDocumentary150 thank you for fact checking me. Is it your opinion that Richard just went around saying that the marriage was illegitimate and people went along with it?
Awesome. ❤❤❤ I wonder if edward really had a pre contact with Eleanor butler before Marrying Elizabeth Woodville.
Or it was Richard 's ambition to take the throne .
My best guess is that a 18 to 20 year old Edward IV told women everything to get to be with them. And I don’t doubt that he bragged afterwards to his mates. The most surprising thing for me is that Richard didn’t already know.
@@HistoryDocumentary150 Everyone is ambitious in this period of Wars of the roses. From king's brother to nobles .
@@HistoryDocumentary150 If Edward wasn't lustful and didn't chased other women after getting married. then this should not have happened.
Thank you for another very interesting video topic! Was there a wedding contract with Eleanor Butler or wasn't? I think it is 50 / 50. I come to this conclusion, because of Edward IV secret marriage with the widow Elizabeth Woodville. She too was a widow and Edward IV wanted her as his mistress and to get her, he had to marry her. So obviously Edward IV liked widows, ladys that already had been marrid and so some experiences.... And they had enough experiences to not just jump into his arms.
On the other hand the Eleanor Butler story looks so very like the story of Elizabeth Woodville.... And obviously the whole court wasn't happy about Edward IV marriage to Elizabeth Woodville.
So if there was a contract, pre contract with Eleanor Butler, I bet Edward IV had sex with her what would have made the contract valid.
If there was a valid contract it would have mattered, also for the church, or especially for the church. Would they have believed it? If a bishop said so - I assume yes. A bishop is one of them.
But the church was never asked. And that is fact. Now back then all the people knew Edward IV and all his mistresses..... So it didn't sounded too crazy. And Edward V was a child king.... Also it seems to me that the other noble families didn't liked the Woodvilles too much. No Woodville king, much less Woodvilles around in court, I guess.
And right obviously they all, including Richard III, they had no time to ask the church and have a long court trial about the case.
Bastard or not? I guess if Edward V would have been at legal age he simply would have become king of England. Hnestly I think Richard would have stayed Duke of Gloucester, Lord of the north. Every king needed a strong man to control the north and fight against the Scotts.
So I too think bastards or not, as long as the two princes did exist and a Woodville was alive, Richard III wasn't safe. The Woodvilles would have tried to free the princes and start a rebellion as often as they could.
So to have the two princes in the Tower in London and leave the city for a longer journey around seems to me no good idea....
I think Richard III had to secretly remove them from the tower out of England or.... And he could not tell openly that he had send the princes to Burgundy or where ever or that they died.... So he keept quiet abot them.
I would love to know what John Argentine, Edward V physician could tell....or the teacher of the princes, John Giles. Till when did they got payed for there serice? And when did the service ended? Wehen did they really no longer visited the princes in the tower?
He (Richard) imho definitely was responsible for the Princes deaths...but I understand why he did them away...they (the princes) were under the influences of the Rivers family and he would never have been safe thereafter...so do them to death...claim the throne by whatever means and live...but we know that plan didn't quite work out thanks to the events of Bosworth Field
I appreciate all the AI labels lol
Yes, Richard did it
Did what? I don't know if he killed the kids, but he's definitely responsible for it, since it would have happened on his watch and I don't know of him ordering any investigation or taking any measures to prove they were still alive. So, even if someone else did it, he clearly was satisfied with the 2 princes being out of the picture. I'd count that as a tacit approval.
@@octavianpopescu4776 He was in charge, the buck stopped with the king. Who would have bumped off the King's nephews without his nod at the least?
not sure...the pretenders..Warbeck I believe was Prince Richard, Prince Edward having died in prison, the two skeletons were poor imposters. I have only my gut instinct on this. Elizabeth of York could have been adamant, bad wasn't. Henry VII, even paraded Warbeck as the missing Richard...initially. Tudors were usurpers.
you would know, right? you were there
You claim that it was within the competence of Parliament, to decide that Richard had the right to the crown. I wonder of this was so. For Parliament to have the competence to decide if Richard had that right. It must follow that it had the competence to reject Richard's right to the crown. And I don't think that it did. As you rightly say, Parliament was summoned by, or in the name of the King. ( After his Coronation, that was Richard, the rolls were read, in his name and for Titulus Regius to become law, it had to have his consent, as monarch.
However, if it was to reject Titulus Regius, this would imply that Richard was not King, by right, and that he had no right to summon Parliament, but that therefore the Parliament that had answered his summons, was itself no Parliament.
The fact that the Members had answered his summons, meant that they could not reject his right to be King, they could only give consent, to confirm what had already happened, not decide competence.
What you describe is the contradictive nature of the English system. And we had cases where your scenario basically happened - for example the deposition of Edward II and Richard II. They found workarounds in "convincing" the respective monarch to surrender the crown. But both didn't live very long afterwards, which says a lot. If the parliament would have refused Titulus Regius it would have accepted Richard as man who was seen as the legitimate king for a time. That's why Edward V is counted.
If there was no pre contract, why the secret wedding and no fancy celebrating after. Anne Boelyn who once declared the wedding to be of true matter and a second big wedding afterwards
Secret Weddings might have been unusual, but they weren't unknown. Edward's Great-Great Grandfather also was secretly married. Given Richard Neville's opposition to, and Cecily Neville's apparent distaste for Elizabeth, one possibility is that Edward knew very well, that he was expected to marry in line with his station and his title, and then he decided that he didn't want to.