Read Online GREAT UNSOLVED CRIMES (True Crime) by Rodney Castleden - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Rodney Castleden
Ads: Link
difficult to see what else might have happened to them other than an untimely death. If they were murdered, they might have been murdered at the orders of Richard III or Henry VII. When they were murdered, by whom and at whose orders is still entirely unknown, though it has usually been assumed that Richard III was responsible for ordering their murder. Richard was only in power for two years, and Henry VII, who would equally have wanted rival claimants out of the way, was around for much longer. Indeed Henry VII and Henry VIII systematically and ruthlessly weeded out aristocrats with any significant Plantagenet connections, simply to ensure the supremacy of their own dynasty. Within that culture, eliminating the sons of Edward IV would have been inevitable.
Shakespeare has conditioned us to believe that Richard III was evil, but he, Shakespeare, had little choice but to be a mouthpiece for Tudor propaganda. His play Richard III is in effect a justification for Henry VII’s usurpation of the English throne; but Henry VII’s claim to the throne, his pedigree, was not as strong as Richard’s, as he himself must have known. Shakespeare blames Richard for the murder of his innocent brother, George, Duke of Clarence, but history records a very different story. Clarence did indeed plot against Edward IV and it was Edward himself who had him executed, and privately rather than secretly, in the Tower.
Some have excused the alleged murder of the two princes on the grounds that England needed to be governed by a man. There were, however, precedents for boy-kings – Richard II and Henry VI had been boy-kings – and they had regents or protectors to rule for them until they were old enough to rule for themselves. A well-established mechanism existed to get round the problem, as Richard III himself clearly understood. As for Bishop Stillington’s accusation that Prince Edward, the boy-king, had no right to the throne: that turns out to have been doubly true. Edward IV was a bigamist, so his sons by his invalid second marriage to Elizabeth Woodville were both illegitimate. As illegitimate offspring they could not succeed to the throne.
Edward IV was himself illegitimate. His mother was Cecily, Duchess of York, but she conceived Edward on about 28 July 1441 while her husband the duke was away on campaign (14 July–21 August) and she was having an affair with an archer called Blaybourne. It was matter of general comment that Richard (Richard III) and George (Duke of Clarence) were men of slight build, like their natural father the duke of York, but Edward (Edward IV) was huge. He was six foot four inches tall, the same build as his natural father, Blaybourne. It was an open secret. The French king Louis XI, laughed, ‘He is not Edward IV! Everyone knows his name is Blaybourne!’
Richard III would certainly have known that his older ‘brother’ was an illegitimate half-brother, but kept quiet about it for safety’s sake while his brother was alive. Once Edward IV was dead, it was a different matter. Then it was safe for him to expose the double illegitimacy of Edward’s sons. Given his long and impeccable record of intense family loyalty down to that moment in 1483, Richard may even have seen it as his painful duty to bring out the skeletons in the family cupboard and try to purify the dynastic bloodline; he may have seen it as his patriotic duty to the integrity of the crown. What we see here is a very different Richard III from the crook-backed villain of Shakespeare’s play, and someone really rather unlikely to have killed his nephews.
Part Two: Unsolved Crimes Of The Early Modern Period (1500–1800)
The Suspicious Death Of Amy Robsart
The scene of Amy Robsart’s death was Cumnor Hall or Cumnor Place in Oxfordshire. In 1560 Cumnor Hall was a modest low-built house arranged round a quadrangle. It had been the sanatorium of the monks of Abingdon Abbey but after the suppression of the monasteries
Shakespeare has conditioned us to believe that Richard III was evil, but he, Shakespeare, had little choice but to be a mouthpiece for Tudor propaganda. His play Richard III is in effect a justification for Henry VII’s usurpation of the English throne; but Henry VII’s claim to the throne, his pedigree, was not as strong as Richard’s, as he himself must have known. Shakespeare blames Richard for the murder of his innocent brother, George, Duke of Clarence, but history records a very different story. Clarence did indeed plot against Edward IV and it was Edward himself who had him executed, and privately rather than secretly, in the Tower.
Some have excused the alleged murder of the two princes on the grounds that England needed to be governed by a man. There were, however, precedents for boy-kings – Richard II and Henry VI had been boy-kings – and they had regents or protectors to rule for them until they were old enough to rule for themselves. A well-established mechanism existed to get round the problem, as Richard III himself clearly understood. As for Bishop Stillington’s accusation that Prince Edward, the boy-king, had no right to the throne: that turns out to have been doubly true. Edward IV was a bigamist, so his sons by his invalid second marriage to Elizabeth Woodville were both illegitimate. As illegitimate offspring they could not succeed to the throne.
Edward IV was himself illegitimate. His mother was Cecily, Duchess of York, but she conceived Edward on about 28 July 1441 while her husband the duke was away on campaign (14 July–21 August) and she was having an affair with an archer called Blaybourne. It was matter of general comment that Richard (Richard III) and George (Duke of Clarence) were men of slight build, like their natural father the duke of York, but Edward (Edward IV) was huge. He was six foot four inches tall, the same build as his natural father, Blaybourne. It was an open secret. The French king Louis XI, laughed, ‘He is not Edward IV! Everyone knows his name is Blaybourne!’
Richard III would certainly have known that his older ‘brother’ was an illegitimate half-brother, but kept quiet about it for safety’s sake while his brother was alive. Once Edward IV was dead, it was a different matter. Then it was safe for him to expose the double illegitimacy of Edward’s sons. Given his long and impeccable record of intense family loyalty down to that moment in 1483, Richard may even have seen it as his painful duty to bring out the skeletons in the family cupboard and try to purify the dynastic bloodline; he may have seen it as his patriotic duty to the integrity of the crown. What we see here is a very different Richard III from the crook-backed villain of Shakespeare’s play, and someone really rather unlikely to have killed his nephews.
Part Two: Unsolved Crimes Of The Early Modern Period (1500–1800)
The Suspicious Death Of Amy Robsart
The scene of Amy Robsart’s death was Cumnor Hall or Cumnor Place in Oxfordshire. In 1560 Cumnor Hall was a modest low-built house arranged round a quadrangle. It had been the sanatorium of the monks of Abingdon Abbey but after the suppression of the monasteries
Similar Books
