It is generally believed that the young king, Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York were murdered in the Tower of London. Later in the early 20th century two skeletal remains were unearthed and were accepted as those of the two lads. It has been more controversial as to who had the deed done. Advocates of Richard III put the blame on Henry VII( Henry Tudor ) but most people accept Richard as the perpetrator. Who do you think was guilty and why?
share[deleted]
Dear sankoff,
Interesting posting. You are obviously a devout Ricardian. If you have not read Josephine Tey's novel The Daughter of Time you would enjoy its eloquent defense of Richard.
[deleted]
That is, to prevent someone from using them to take power and oust the existing king.
Richard III's rule was based on the revelation that Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous and thus Edward V and the other children became illegitimate. Had they been legitimatised again, then had the two princes died the next in line would have been Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. She became Queen Consort after marrying Henry VII though she should have been Queen Regnant had the children of Edward IV been re-legitimised.
Had they not been legitimate Richard III would have been the legitimate king.
Henry VII's claim is based on his being a descendent of John of Gaunt. The Lancastrian line was descendent of John of Gaunt whose descendents were also Henry IV, V and VI. However, Henry IV's taking the throne was based on a coup d'etat. He did not have a legitimate claim - at one point, they said that under French rules he did have the claim (Salic law) but these were not French rules in this case. That is, the descendents of Lionel Duke of Clarence should have been the kings after the death of Richard II, but the line passed through... a woman. Salic law says that the titles cannot pass through a woman, but the English law says that they can. The whole Yorkist line is based being descendent of Lionel Duke of Clarence. Richard III thus was the legitimate king.
Henry Tudor's claim is even weaker in that he was descendent of an illegitimate child of John of Gaunt who was later legitimised but on condition that the descendents could not claim the throne.
From Henry's point of view it was best to declare Richard III legitimate and Edward V illegitimate because otherwise he'd have to accept himself as King Consort under a Queen Elizabeth instead of as a King Regnant.