What are the 5 greatest mysteries behind the Wars of the Roses?
Here are the 5 greatest mysteries as determined by Dan Jones, author of The Hollow Crown.
1
What was really wrong with King Henry VI?
“Henry VI (1422–60 and 1470–71) was comfortably the most incompetent king of the whole Plantagenet line, and his benign but ultimately disastrous rule began the series of conflicts that we now call the Wars of the Roses.“
“The crisis broke in 1453 when Henry appears to have suffered a near-complete mental collapse. He stopped responding to other people; he didn’t recognise his own wife or newborn son; and for several months he was completely helpless and utterly withdrawn from the world. One contemporary said the king was “smitten with a frenzy”.
“The obvious comparison was with Henry’s grandfather Charles VI of France, who had suffered similarly long bouts of madness in which he attacked his courtiers, smeared himself in his own waste and screamed that he felt thousands of sharp needles piercing his flesh.“
“So was Henry’s illness hereditary? And how would we diagnose it today? Catatonia? Schizophrenia? Severe depression? Medical diagnoses across the centuries are fraught with difficulties, and it is quite possible that we will never be able to say for sure. What we do know is that Henry’s debilitating illness had a correspondingly dreadful effect on both the man and his kingdom, as his subjects fought at first to save the realm, and then to steal control of it for themselves.“
2
Were the Tudors really Tudors?
“The great survivors of the Wars of the Roses were a strange little half-Welsh, half-French family who took the surname Tidyr, or Tudur, or Tudor. Famously, it was Henry Tudor who emerged victorious from the battle of Bosworth in 1485 and, as Henry VII of England, went on to establish the most famous royal dynasty of them all.”
“But the origins of this remarkable family are surprisingly foggy. Their first connection to the English crown came through Henry VII’s grandmother, Catherine de Valois, widow of Henry V and mother of Henry VI. As dowager queen Catherine had caused quite a stir by secretly marrying her lowly servant, Owen Tudor. Plenty of romantic rumours have swirled around that union, but whatever the case, during the early 1430s Catherine gave birth to several children who took the Tudor name, most notably Henry VII’s father, Edmund Tudor, and another boy named Jasper Tudor.“
“But were they really Tudors? Intriguingly, shortly before Catherine became involved with Owen, there was a widespread suggestion that she was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort, the future duke of Somerset, who would be killed at the battle of St Albans in 1455. This rumour was taken so seriously that parliament took up the matter and issued a special statute restricting the right of queens of England to remarry.“
Edmund Beaufort, c1450. Engraving taken from portrait painted by Hans Holbein the Younger. (Photo by Kean Collection/Getty Images)
“It has been speculated that Catherine’s marriage to the lowly Owen Tudor was contracted to cover up her politically dangerous relationship with Edmund Beaufort. In that case, is it possible that Edmund Tudor was not a Tudor at all, but was actually given the forename of his real father?“
“The great 15th-century expert Gerald Harriss made precisely this suggestion in a fine footnote written in 1988:
“By its very nature the evidence for Edmund ‘Tudor’s’ parentage is less than conclusive, but such facts as can be assembled permit the agreeable possibility that Edmund ‘Tudor’ and Margaret Beaufort [ie Edmund Tudor’s wife and Henry VII’s mother] were first cousins and that the royal house of ‘Tudor’ sprang in fact from Beauforts on both sides.”
Wouldn’t that be something?
3
Who was Edward IV’s real wife?
“The history books usually state that Edward IV’s wife was Elizabeth Woodville (or ‘Wydeville’). That in itself is a delicious fact: when Edward married Elizabeth in 1464 she was of lowly rank, a widow with two children from her previous marriage and one of the king’s subjects, rather than a foreign princess. What’s more, Edward’s choice of queen upset his closest political ally, the earl of Warwick; caused diplomatic trouble with more than one other country; and annoyed a significant number of other English noble families.“
“But nothing caused quite so much trouble as the suggestion that Edward IV had in fact married someone else. Following the king’s death in 1483, his brother Richard duke of Gloucester claimed that, before the Woodville marriage took place, Edward IV had promised to marry Lady Eleanor Boteler (née Talbot), a daughter of the famous soldier John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury.”
“In 1483 Richard argued that since Edward had once promised to marry Lady Eleanor, he had not subsequently been legally entitled to marry Elizabeth Woodville. This in turn made their union invalid, and their children bastards.”
Elizabeth Woodville, 1463. (Photo by The Print Collector/Print Collector/Getty Images)
“This claim was the basis of Richard’s usurpation of the crown. He made it known that Edward IV’s young son and successor, Edward V, was illegitimate, and instead claimed the throne for himself, as Richard III.”
“But was it true? Conveniently, in 1483 the case could not be properly tested, since Lady Eleanor had died 15 years previously. But today, those seeking to rehabilitate Richard III’s reputation frequently rely on the ‘pre-contract’ argument to defend his actions.“
4
Did Richard III really kill the princes in the Tower?
“Perhaps the greatest mystery of them all, and certainly the question most likely to start a fistfight among any given group of medievalists.”
“For centuries Richard III’s name has been blackened thanks to his usurpation of the throne in 1483 and the subsequent disappearance of his nephews, Edward V and Richard duke of York – better known as ‘the princes in the Tower’.“
“Did the boys really die? And if so, who was to blame? Did Richard have them murdered? Or did they die of natural causes? Were there other agents at work? And if so, who? Could it be, as one contemporary source suggested, that Richard’s sometime ally, the oily and feckless Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, was the prime mover behind the boys’ deaths? Or was there an even more sinister conspiracy, perhaps involving Henry Tudor’s wily mother, Margaret Beaufort?“
“Readers of my book The Hollow Crown(2014) will know where I stand on this, and you can find out more by watching the third episode of Channel 5’s Britain’s Bloody Crown. But I do not pretend that the case is closed. For many Ricardians, the charge of murdering the princes in the Tower is a heinous and unjust accusation levelled at a grievously misunderstood monarch… Where do you stand?“
5
Was Perkin Warbeck really Richard IV?
“An odd young man with an even odder name, Perkin Warbeck is usually described as either a ‘pretender’ or an ‘imposter’. Who was he really?“
“We usually think of the Wars of the Roses as having ended in 1485 at the battle of Bosworth. In fact, the threat of a revived dynastic war to put a Yorkist king back on the English throne haunted England deep into the Tudor years – well into the 1520s, in fact.“
“One of the most dangerous times was the 1490s, when the threat of Yorkist plots sponsored from the continent seriously unsettled the fragile Tudor regime. For several years the figurehead for these plots was a young man who claimed to be Richard, duke of York – the younger of the princes in the Tower. If he were crowned, he would have taken the throne as King Richard IV.”
Perkin Warbeck, c1495. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
“It is easy now to scoff at all this. But at the time, this supposed Richard IV had serious support from rulers in Ireland, France, the Netherlands, Scotland and the Holy Roman Empire, and he attempted several sea invasions of England.“
“Events came to a head in 1497 when the pseudo-Richard finally succeeded in landing in England and joined up with rebels in the west country. He was captured and brought before Henry VII, where he confessed that he was not, in fact, Richard duke of York, but a French-Flemish merchant’s son, a troublemaker and a puppet for enemies of the Tudor regime.”
“At first Henry VII was merciful, keeping Warbeck at court and parading him in public to assure people that he was not the real Richard duke of York. But this peaceful situation did not last long. In 1498 Warbeck escaped. He was recaptured and placed in the Tower of London. But while there he was caught up in further plotting against the crown, this time in league with another Yorkist claimant, Edward earl of Warwick.“
“Again the plotting was foiled and in 1499 Warbeck was forced once more to confess his imposture, and was hanged at Tyburn.“
“Yet doubt remains. Was Warbeck a pretender? Or were his confessions made under duress? The plots against Henry VII have more than a whiff of a set-up about them: could it be that really was the young Richard duke of York, entangled in a nightmare of Henry VII’s concoction and forced to deny his own birthright?“
“Most historians would say not. But the possibility remains tantalizing enough to consider…“
The Wars of the Roses, a series of civil wars for control of the English throne between the houses of Lancaster and York, is filled with intrigue and unresolved questions. Here are five of the greatest mysteries surrounding this tumultuous period:
- The Fate of the Princes in the Tower:
The disappearance of Edward IV's sons, Edward and Richard, in 1483 remains one of the most enduring mysteries. After their father's death, they were placed in the Tower of London by their uncle, Richard III. Their subsequent disappearance led to speculation about their fate, with theories ranging from murder to escape. The true events surrounding their fate have never been conclusively proven. - The Identity of the "Princes in the Tower":
Related to the previous mystery is the question of who was responsible for the princes' disappearance and potential murder. While Richard III is often blamed, the lack of evidence and the political motivations of various factions complicate the narrative. Other suspects, including Henry Tudor (Henry VII), have also been suggested, but no definitive proof has emerged. - The Role of Margaret of Anjou:
Margaret of Anjou, wife of Henry VI, played a significant role in the Wars of the Roses as a fierce advocate for the Lancastrian cause. Her motivations and influence are often debated. Was she a power-hungry figure or a devoted wife and mother? Her political maneuvers and the extent of her involvement in key battles and decisions remain subjects of historical inquiry. - The Legitimacy of Edward IV:
Edward IV's legitimacy has been questioned due to claims that his parents' marriage was invalid. This issue became a point of contention during the Wars of the Roses, particularly for Richard III, who claimed the throne based on these doubts. The legitimacy of Edward's lineage and its implications for the Yorkist claim to the throne continue to be debated by historians. - The Impact of Propaganda and Public Perception:
The Wars of the Roses were not only battles of armies but also struggles for public support. The use of propaganda, including the portrayal of key figures like Richard III and Henry VI, shaped public perception. Understanding how these narratives were constructed and their impact on the conflict is complex. The extent to which propaganda influenced the outcome of the wars and the eventual rise of Henry VII remains a mystery.
These mysteries highlight the complexities and nuances of the Wars of the Roses, revealing how history is often shaped by unanswered questions and varying interpretations.
The greatest mystery of the 15th century (and there are far more than five) has confounded students of British history for more than five hundred years.
It’s by far the most interesting mystery worth trying to solve. Things like the nature of Henry VI’s mental state and the legality of Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville are interesting academic curiosities but, compared to the mystery of Richard III’s alleged wickedness, they pale to insignificance.
There are few portraits of Richard III but in this one, he seems more fretful and careworn than evil.
Villain or Victim?
Very simply, what’s the truth about England’s last Plantagenet king? Was he really a megalomaniac and ‘serial killer’? And if so, what evidence do we have of his Machiavellian manoeuvres?
Or was he, perhaps, the target of a cynical slander (circulated after he could no longer defend himself) that was intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his reign and justify the treason of his successor?
Richard III is unquestionably one of the most fascinating figures in British history. Although he was just 32 years old when his reign (and his life) came to its bloody end in 1485, he supposedly accomplished as much villainy during his brief reign as any three other kings combined.
Sir Thomas More - Henry VII’s Chancellor
Richard’s most notable accusers were both citizens of unreproachable reputation. They were none other than a bona fide saint, Sir Thomas More, Chancellor to Henry VIII, and no less than the Bard of Stratford-on-Avon himself.
Inasmuch as More was the servant of a Tudor king, I think we can safely say that he was certainly not disposed to present Richard in a flattering light. It’s also worth pointing out, however, that Shakespeare’s “Richard III” (written in the early 1590s) seems to have an uncanny resemblance to More’s “History of King Richard III” (written at least 30 years after the Battle of Bosworth and published 8 years after More’s own execution for treason).
In the 15th and 16th centuries, 30 years was an eternity. By then, most of those who had known Richard personally were already dead, and not necessarily of natural causes. There was little in the way of records, archives or evidence to draw from and those that did exist were written by those with dubious sources or questionable motives. A world in which public knowledge was based on rumour, hearsay and speculation was hardly conducive to accurate biography.
When Richard died, More was a child barely seven years old. He certainly had no personal knowledge of the man he so thoroughly vilified. Nevertheless, it is More who laid out the case against Richard.
The Sainted More presents Richard as a malevolent schemer, deformed in body and spirit, who literally murdered his way to the throne of England. According to Sir Thomas, he was…
‘little of stature, ill featured, croke-backed, his left shoulder much higher than his right, hard favoured of visage … he was malicious, wrathfull, envious, and from afore his birth, ever forwarde.’
There’s much more of the same but you get the picture.
The judgment was unequivocal, despite the fact that his “History” was undoubtedly shaped by the opinions of those who profited most from Richard’s death.
If More was writing at a distance, Shakespeare was even further removed from the events he dramatized. “Richard III” wasn’t written until the end of the 16th century, probably around 1592–93. In other words, more than a century had passed since Henry Tydder (the family’s original name) accepted Richard’s bloody crown from one of his Lancastrian allies.
The Tudor Myth
Shakespeare, and the Tudor ‘spin doctors’ who influenced him, had a vested interest in portraying the destruction of the House of York as a kind of morality play. One might even describe it as a political variation on the legend of the Fisher King.
Through the Tudor lens, good King Henry triumphed over a wicked usurper; symbolically united the White Rose of the Yorkists and the Red Rose of the Lancastrians (by marrying a Yorkist princess) under his own Tudor rose ; and restored peace, order and fertility to a barren land. It’s a story we hear, with very little variation, every time there’s a US presidential election.
Political correctness demanded nothing less than that England’s last Plantagenet king be painted as a deranged and murderous sociopath.
Henry VII… looking far more villainous than Richard ever did!
One of those Tudor ‘spin doctors’ just happened to be one of Shakespeare’s patrons, Lord Strange. Strange (pronounced Strang) was the eldest son of Thomas Stanley and Eleanor Neville, sister of the Earl of Warwick. When the widowed Stanley subsequently married the Countess of Richmond (Lady Margaret Beaufort) he became the stepbrother, to her son, Henry Tudor.
During the battle, Lord Stanley held back his own forces (ostensibly pledged to Richard), thus allowing the Tudor usurper to win the victory and claim the throne. It was Stanley who allegedly removed Richard’s ‘battle crown’ from his body and handed it to Henry Tudor while Richard’s body was still warm. Henry subsequently rewarded Stanley with an earldom. It seems like a small price to pay for a crown.
Strange was one of Shakespeare’s earliest ‘patrons’ and kept his own acting company, known as Lord Strange’s Men. When Strange inherited his father’s title, the company became the Earl of Derby’s Men and, though there are no records to prove it, it’s not implausible to suggest that Shakespeare wrote his play at Lord Strange’s behest and in a way that flattered the Stanleys. Although the first recorded performance of the play was in 1633, for the court of Charles I, Strange’s players probably performed it shortly after it was written.
Are we connecting the dots, boys and girls?
The case for the defence…
Five hundred years on, how do we reconcile Shakespeare’s caricature, (and it would have been recognized as such by contemporary audiences), with what we know of Richard’s life?
In various challenges written over the years (most famously in Josephine Tey’s historical whodunit, “The Daughter of Time” and Paul Murray Kendall’s “Richard III”) the young brother of Edward IV is remembered as the king’s faithful retainer and trusted confidant, beloved by the Northerners who knew him best as the Duke of Gloucester, Edward’s Warden of the Northern Marches.
Richard had grown up at Middleham Castle in Wensleydale and held Yorkshire in great esteem. There is no doubt that they reciprocated his affection. When a galloper brought news of Richard’s death to the great city of York, its Mayor solemnly reported to his aldermen:
“King Richard, late mercifully reigning upon us, was piteously slain and murdered, to the great heaviness of this city…”
This was not a celebration of the death of a hated tyrant, but a mournful and spontaneous epitaph from men who knew and loved him.
What the historical evidence does make clear is that Richard was not in the least responsible for the various murders for which he was accused by More, Shakespeare, Polydore Vergil and the anonymous Croyland ‘chronicler’.
- His brother George, the Duke of Clarence, was put to death for treason by his brother Edward IV, after George’s ill-considered participation in various plots against him. The execution was private, but there’s no evidence that Edward had him drowned in a barrel of wine.
- Edward I (son of Henry VI) died at the battle of Tewkesbury. Polydore Vergil’s claim that Richard murdered him is simply not borne out by the facts. Almost a dozen eyewitnesses reported that Edward was “slain in battle”.
- Nor was Richard to blame for the death of Edward’s father, the deranged King Henry VI. According to Sir Thomas More… “(Richard) slew with his own hands King Henry VI, being prisoner in the Tower, as men constantly say, and that without commandment or knowledge of the King (Edward IV), who would undoubtedly, if he had intended that thing, have appointed that butcherly office to some other than his own born brother.” This is a total fabrication. It’s generally accepted that Henry died in the Tower, but on the orders of Edward IV.
- Though it’s true that Richard ordered the execution of Henry Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham. It was hardly murder. Stafford had fomented rebellion in 1483 and was found guilty of treason.
- Shakespeare’s claim that Richard had murdered his wife, Anne is grotesquely unfair. Anne died in the winter of 1484, most likely of tuberculosis. Richard neither forced her into marriage nor fed her poison. The two had known each other since childhood and had married when Anne was 16 and Richard 20. Few medieval marriages could be considered love-matches, but theirs seems to have been loving and affectionate.
- Far from ruling as a ‘tyrant’, historian and antiquarian John Rous (author of Historia Regum Angliae) wrote that “The most mighty Prince Richard … all avarice set aside ruled his subjects in his realm full commendably, punishing offenders of his laws, specially extortioners and oppressors of his commons, and cherishing those that were virtuous, by the which discreet guiding he got great thanks of God and love of all his subjects, rich and poor, and great praise of the people of all other lands about him”.
- When Richard’s remains were discovered in 2015, in a Leicester parking lot, it was found that Richard did have scoliosis but there was no withered arm, and, though one shoulder may have been visibly higher than the other, he was certainly no hunchback.
Did Richard Order the Murder of the Princes in the Tower?
Whichever characterization of Richard one finds most plausible will probably determine one’s conclusions about the fate of the Princes in the Tower.
It is the most monstrous of the crimes attributed to Richard. As children, many of us heard some variation of the story. In the one I was told, the Princes were abandoned in the forest by the evil ‘headsman’ but were saved by a kindly wood-cutter. Other versions involve witches and wicked queens, but most of them seem to be the mythologized variations on the original theme.
Obviously, if we can be persuaded that Richard was a ruthless, cold-blooded, Machiavellian, we are more likely to be sold on the claim that he secretly had his nephews put to death. So long as they were alive (at least, according to the Tudor deconstruction of Richard’s motive), the sons of Edward IV represented a threat to a claim to the throne that was otherwise tenuous. Alive, they could have become the focus for rebellion, pawns for any pretender with enough troops to fight for his claim.
In fact, there is no historical or documentary evidence that the Princes died on Richard’s watch. None at all!
We know that 12-year-old Edward and his brother Richard, aged 9, were in Richard’s care, housed in the Royal Apartments in the Tower of London, until at least the summer of 1483. After that, there is no record (official or otherwise) of their movements. Despite all the claims made by Shakespeare, More, The Croyland Chronicler, Polydore Virgil and Dominic Mancini (the Italian visitor who reported events in England to his French employers in 1483), we simply do not know what happened to them. In any court of law, their speculations would be treated as hearsay, the kind of material written only by gossip columnists and slanderers with a hidden agenda.
They could have been quietly removed to more spacious quarters somewhere in the English countryside by any one of several people. One or both the brothers could have been smuggled out of the country, either before or after their uncle’s death.
They may have died of natural causes, or they may have lived into old age. It’s even possible that Richard, knowing that they were vulnerable, did his best to protect them by spiriting them away to some haven he thought safe at least until they reached adulthood.
Indeed when one considers motive, means, opportunity — and character, there were other suspects who might as easily have had something to do with the Princes’ disappearance.
The first was Henry Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham, an odious pretender and schemer who had his own eye on the throne. He had at first thrown in with Richard when he stepped in as Lord Protector after his brother’s death. Later, however, he turned against him and lent his name to a rebellion aimed at bringing Henry Tydder to the throne. For this act of treason, he was subsequently found guilty and executed.
As Richard’s Lord Constable of England, however, he had full access to to the tower. He had motive (his own plot to seize the throne) and he certainly had the opportunity while Richard was away from London during the summer of 1483. A Portuguese contemporary suggested that "… after the passing away of King Edward in the year of 83, another one of his brothers, the Duke of Gloucester, had in his power the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of the said king his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose custody the said Princes were starved to death."
Then there was Henry Tudor.
If anyone had a motive to get rid of the boys, he did.
Henry’s claim to the throne was far dodgier than Richard’s and there’s no question that Henry’s invasion of England (financed by the French) was an act of treason.
We can judge Henry’s character by the fact that he dated his ascendancy to the throne from the day before the battle of Bosworth Field, thus ensuring that he could claim that Richard’s resistance to Henry’s invasion was an act of treason, rather than the other way round.
No wonder they called him the “the huckster king”…
If you disregard the usual ‘what happened to the Princes in the Tower’? (And note, I didn’t say, ‘who killed them’?) these would be my five:
Why did Edward IV marry such an unsuitable woman as Elizabeth Woodville? I feel this is the real cause of the downfalll of the house of York.
Why didn’t Richard III punish Margaret Beaufort and Bishop Morton more effectively? In my opinion, he wasn’t ruthless enough. They were proven traitors and if he had dealt with them better maybe he would have reigned for longer.
Why did he kill Hastings so suddenly? There are various theories, but no one really knows. Did he pull a weapon on Richard? Was he complicit in the plots against Richard? A French spy? I feel Richard would have had a good reason.
Why did Edward treat Warwick so shabbily? If Warwick hadn’t rebelled against Edward (with just cause IMO), things would have been very different.
Who really were Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel? Again, lots of theories and no one really knows. I personally feel it‘s possible that the Lambert Simnel rebellion was actually fronted by Edward (V), who was then killed at Stoke and a substitute boy put in by Tudor. Many now believe Perkin was actually the younger brother, Richard.
These are the ones that came to mind first, but there are many others - that’s what makes the period so fascinating!
Well, obviously what happened to ‘The Princes in the Tower’
but also (and I know it’s more than 5!)
Was Edward IV really married previously to Eleanor Talbot, making his later marriage bigamous?
Was Edward of Lancaster really Henry VI’s child or that of Somerset?
What were the real motives of Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, whose behaviour seems to make no sense?
Was George of Clarence really drowned in Malmsey?
What happened to Francis Lovell who vanished after the battle of Stoke?
Where was Richard III’s young son Edward, who was prince of Wales, buried? No existing documents mention his burial site.
Who was the boy called ‘Lambert Simnel’ ? No records exist that there was ever such a person born with that name..
Brent’s answer is excellent
To add five lesser known events or questions that were influential. In these I concentrate on the events that came together to bring the War of the Roses to an end
What caused the early death of Edward IV? an event that flung the country into a succession crisis for two years and directly led to the end of the House of York. Contrast with the succession had Edward IV lived to 1489 or 1490
Why did Aubrey 12th earl of Oxford rebel in 1462? whose death led eventually to the defeat of Richard III at Bosworth and the defeat of Lincoln at Stoke by a vengeful son, which battles ended the War of the Roses
Why did Richard III trust the Stanleys? Trust that gave the kingdom to Henry VII in 1485
Why did Richard III trust Buckingham, already implicated in the rebellion of 1472–1473 and the attempt to place Clarence on the throne in 1476, married and brother or brother in law to Lancastrians imprisoned or with Henry VII, yet given an early and prominent position by Richard III (only to weeks later rebel)
Why did Edward IV marry Elizabeth Woodville? a marriage that threw his country back into civil war and briefly cost him his crown, would eventually see Richard III usurp the throne when the Woodvilles attempted to force him out of his role as Lord Protector
Why did only one of the four families with a better claim than either Edward IV or Henry VII ever attempt the throne? Time and again we see either the House of York or the Tewdor king in waiting win the respect and command of the powerful families in England, but an indication of how fragile this all was is seen in the constant threats Richard III then faced. Which begs a different question? How did Edward IV hold the kingdom together from 1473–1483? and more importantly Richard III did not from 1483–1485?
The removal and summary execution of Hastings in 1483? cui bono? was there a Shore rebellion? or was it a powerplay by Buckingham etc etc, but it removed from Richard III a key and powerful supporter of the House of York and someone whom had helped establish Richard on the throne.
Hastings’ death in 1483 saw the kingdom face two years of first Buckingham’s rebellion in the summer of 1483, then in 1484 the escape of key Lancastrians from Hammes to join Henry VII, the capture of Hammes and siege of Calais, a second rebellion involving Margaret Beaufort that attempted to marry Elizabeth of York to Henry VII, Calais wavering between Tudor and York in 1485, and then from May 1485 an expected invasion from Brittany. Two summers of rebellion that never allowed Richard III’s reign to take off and that ended the House of York, and arguably was precipitated by Richard III siding with Buckingham against Hastings (or being persuaded that Hastings was a traitor by the ambitious Buckingham)?
By August 1485, Richard had the support of the Howard and Percy family but Grey, Neville, Beaumont and de Vere were imprisoned or had gone across to Henry Tewdor, Stanley was dubious, Stafford, Rivers and Hastings had been executed. Richard was fast losing allies he could trust. How much he precipitated this remains debatable but the distinction between 9 April 1483 and 10 April 1483 was stark and not fully explained.
https://www.quora.com/
Comments
Post a Comment