46 Comments

1. 

   Miriam on August 2, 2024 at 7:30 am

   I find your timeline a little confusing. For example, you note that on October 31st that Buckingham is being held a prisoner. Yet for November 1st you then note that Buckingham is captured. If he was being held a prisoner on October 31st wouldn’t that mean that he was already captive? This information you note is contradictory and makes little sense. I think that a more accurate timeline would reflect facts from King Richard’s time period/contemporary’s and not things written later during the Tudor regime based on recollections from individuals that did not like Richard and had him killed or based on rumours. Perhaps the most realistic of timelines lie in the few records of the time that has survived and not innuendo or rumours. You know like the one that went around that he was planning to marry his niece but contemporary documentation confirms otherwise that he in fact was planning to marry a Portuguese Princess and arranging a marriage for Elizabeth of York with the Duke of Beja. This method assists with keeping personal bias to a minimum.

   Reply
   • 

     Pamela Horter-Moore on August 2, 2024 at 6:25 pm

     I appreciate your perspective and take note of your criticism. I am aware of the imprecision of the sources. It was not my intention to timeline all of the events of Richard’s reign, as I feel sure this has been done elsewhere.
     So, two sources give different dates for the capture of the Duke of Buckingham – October 31 and November 1. A day of difference and a trivial point.
     What Richard’s records show and what people believed are two different subjects. Richard’s arranging a marriage for himself and another for Elizabeth was politically expedient. It was a sure way to stop rumors and keep Elizabeth out of the hands of rivals. He married her sister Cecily to one of his supporters, and he probably would have likewise neutralized all of Edward’s daughters when they became of age.
     It is likely that his subjects viewed his treatment of his nieces more cynically. (That Richard was negotiating marriage between Elizabeth and the son of the King of Portugal suggests he knew she was more than the illegitimate daughter of Edward IV and Lady Elizabeth Grey.)
     People forget that Richard’s perspective was the prevailing and official narrative in England from May 1483 when he was made Protector until his death in August 1485. He told his side of the story from the time of his capture of Edward V until the day he died. As Protector and King, he had the power to do so.
     During those months, Richard’s opposition (see Richard’s Rebels) had a voice too, but it had to go underground. That doesn’t illegitimatize their point of view. Richard’s proclamations against sedition indicate that he was aware his subjects were conspiring against him.
     In the long run, despite the fact that Richard had the means to tell his story, it was not his narrative that was believed, but that of his opposition. Henry Tudor didn’t need to destroy Richard’s reputation because Richard had already done that himself.
     However, your point is well taken. I will amend the page to direct people to your comment.

     Reply
   • 

     Jon on April 17, 2026 at 4:21 am

     What are your sources for all of this? I’m particularly interested in this item:

     “These people were executed by Richard III for their parts in the October Rebellion: George Brown, Knight of the Body who had carried the flag of St. George at Edward IV’s funeral; William Clifford, and four of the following Yeomen of the Crown: William Knight, Richard Cruse, William Frost, Richard Potter, Richard Fisher, John Boutayne, Roger Kelsale, and William Strode.”

     Where did you get all those names from?

     Reply
     • 

       Pamela Horter-Moore on April 17, 2026 at 11:13 am

       You asked me for my sources, and in an email message, you also requested the sources for my timeline at November 25, 1483, and December 4, 1483:
       Charles Ross, Richard III, pages 105-106, 117
       Paul Murray Kendall, Richard the Third, page 333
       Louise Gill, Richard III and Buckingham’s Rebellion, pages 78, and 176-177
       Rosemary Horrox, Richard III: A study in service, pages 160, 170-171, 177

       Reply
     • 

       Pamela Horter-Moore on April 17, 2026 at 4:56 pm

       Well, Jon, I see that my first attempt to address your questions never showed up live. So I guess I will address them here and hope whatever is keeping my replies from going live is corrected. I also will address the email you sent regarding Richard’s arrival in London on November 25 and the deaths of those men on December 4.I refer you to Charles Ross, Richard III, pages 105-106, 117. And to Paul Murray Kendall, Richard the Third, page 333. Also to Louise Gill, Richard III and Buckingham’s Rebellion, pages 78, 176-177. And to Rosemary Horrox, Richard III: A study in service, pages 160, 170-1, 177.

       Reply
2. 

   Robert Wyer on August 28, 2025 at 10:37 am

   Your timeline is most welcome, thank you for constructing it. With this, you have surpassed all other commentary on the subject.
   I have seen references to an “unholy row” between Richard 3 and Buckingham when they met at Gloucester July 31. I have seen no sources given for that claim; what have you discovered, concerning that?
   Your work reads well in that you mostly refrained from editorializing, that is, your remarks do not reflect any particular bias on your part, excepting only one or two instances.
   I suspect More’s reliability. His account of the council meeting that resulted in Hasting’s beheading is untrue in that Richard 3 could not have revealed a “withered arm that never was other”, because we have the bones of Richard 3 which reveal both arms as healthy and neither “withered”. In fact, Richard 3 suffered no physical disability, in the arm or otherwise, his spinal deformity notwithstanding, as he proved in his behavior at Bosworth.

   Thanks again, Robert Wyer

   Reply
   • 

     Pamela Horter-Moore on August 31, 2025 at 3:36 pm

     Thank you for your compliments. Yes, I try to be impartial, but my bias is unapologetically Edwardian, and I agree with you about More’s “History.” It’s not history, but, then again, I am sure he didn’t intend this work to be a history in the modern sense. Instead, it reads like melodrama. There was no way More could have known what these historical figures said verbatim in the grandiose speeches he puts in their mouths. Paul Murray Kendall (“The Great Debate,” The Norton Library, 1965) believed More, as a writer and a humanist, was just trying to imitate the style of the ancient Greek historians and satirists. This sounds plausible. There are many errors in this “History,” and the most grievous is in the first sentence. Edward IV was NOT “fifty and three years” when he died, but a young man of 40 less than three weeks from his 41st birthday. That this history was left in draft is obvious from the blanks More left for items he was unsure about (see Richard Marous below). I suspect that More used “fifty and three” as a placeholder until he could get better information. This certainly doesn’t add to the veracity of his work. However, I don’t reject the “History” entirely as a secondary source. It remains noteworthy in that More had plenty of people he could interview regarding the events of 1483, including his father. That doesn’t mean that I believe More felt compelled to discover the truth of what he was told. In the 1510s, More would have found few people willing and eager to defend Richard III, or to correct any misconceptions about his appearance. Besides that, the “withered hand” invention is a good dramatic device for someone who was more interested in drama than an accurate history. More was a friend of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk. He might have had reservations about implicating his friend’s family in the ambush of Hastings in the Tower. Horace Walpole’s characterization of the “History” as something More wrote “to amuse his leisure and exercise his fancy” rings true. We must remember that More never published this work, but left it unfinished in draft. It was published years after his death. For better or worse, authors usually don’t destroy their draft manuscripts, even if they abandon a project. When notable authors die, the people who find their drafts publish them, taking advantage of the celebrity of the writer (as more recently with Harper Lee). I think I understand the human psychology behind the legend of Richard’s deformities. When we admire, respect, or like someone, we overlook a blemish or imperfection. However, if our opinions change and we now dislike the person, everything negative about them grows in proportion. A slight curvature of the spine, as in Richard’s case, becomes a crookback, and, later, as the legend grows, a hunchback. I recommend Richard Marous’s biography of Thomas More (Alfred A. Knopf, NY, 1984) for a detailed and objective analysis of More’s History through the eyes of a biographer. I will reply to your other comment about Richard’s and Buckingham’s falling out soon.

     Reply
   • 

     Pamela Horter-Moore on September 3, 2025 at 4:58 pm

     It’s ironic to write about Buckingham the day before his birthday. His about-face has always puzzled historians. I checked a sample of historians to see what they said. The Continuation to the Croyland Chronicles, as a primary source on the period, says that Buckingham “repented” his alliance with Richard and “would be” the chief mover of the Rebellion. (Not likely. He’s just the most important and surprising rebel in it.) Modern historians are less inclined to consider his motives honorable. S. B. Chrimes turns to Tudor historians Vergil and Hall to reference the quarrel you mention regarding Buckingham’s disputed Hereford lands. Chrimes makes a couple of interesting points: Referencing R. S. Sylvester, he mentions that More’s unfinished “History” leaves off where Morton enters his narrative regarding the Rebellion. Chrimes suggests that Buckingham might have entertained the idea of himself replacing Richard on the throne. Other historians have suggested this. Chrimes adds that neither Buckingham’s nor Henry’s ambitions could have succeeded unless the Princes were dead. Louise Gill and other historians add that the restoration of Edward V was the aim of the Rebellion until Buckingham joined sometime in September at the latest. Did Buckingham intend to make himself King? Gill points out that Buckingham’s letter on September 24 says nothing about his intention of making Tudor King. Perhaps Richard was satisfied with his last meeting with Buckingham despite the quarrel, but Buckingham was not. Richard was confident enough in Buckingham to make him head up an oyer et terminal commission set up to deal with the July Conspiracy (Rosemary Horrox). Gill points out that the timing of Buckingham’s about-face coincided with rumors that the Princes were dead. She quotes contemporary sources that implicate Buckingham, as well as Richard, in their murder. She wonders whether Buckingham had a hand in it, and then turned coat, laying the murder squarely on Richard’s shoulders. She suggests that this might be why Richard took his betrayal so personally. I conclude that the rebels found out about the Princes’ death through Buckingham.

     Reply
3. 

   Robert Wyer on September 4, 2025 at 2:12 pm

   Hi Pamela,
   Thanks for your response. I agree with you that the rebels learned of the princes death through Buckingham. I do not attribute their deaths to him, although that possibility cannot be totally dismissed. I am inclined to the view that Richard ordered their murder (or starvation) before he left London for his progress, and left Buckingham in London, with kingly powers, as Constable of England, etc., and holding the bag. Richard may have intended Buckingham as a “bag-holder”, as Richard was that kind of fellow.
   That would explain the meeting of Buckingham and Richard and their “holy row” at Gloucester and Buckingham’s subsequent retirement to his Brecon estate, where I believe he conferred with Morton and others in hatching the uprising against Richard 3. In other words, Buckingham did not like being saddled with the blame for the deaths of the princes and determined to throw in with Richard’s enemies. For me, his moving against Richard 3 proves Buckingham’s knowledge of the prince’s deaths, for why else would he throw in with Henry Tudor, another usurper, if the princes lived?

   Please note that Buckingham would have arrived at Brecon, say, August 6, having parted with Richard August 2. Seven weeks later, September 24, he sent Henry Tudor the letter directing him to invade England on October 18. This letter, bearing his instructions to Henry Tudor, proves that Buckingham was at the center of the rebellion, in my view. I believe that Buckingham had this intention when he arrived at Brecon, August 6, after his meeting with Richard. His power and resources (men, money, arms, offices, etc.) would have made Buckingham the mainspring of the movement, and it was very fast work by Buckingham, to put it all together with all parties ready, within seven weeks.

   I am aware some will disagree with such an early date for the death of the princes, but Richard 3 was never one to dawdle when important work was required (as in the Woodvilles, Hastings), and getting rid of the princes must have seemed to him as important. He helped Henry Tudor more than he helped himself, however. If my view is accepted, regarding the deaths of the princes, Buckingham’s behavior can be explained.

   Reply
   • 

     Pamela Horter-Moore on September 5, 2025 at 10:28 pm

     Hi Robert. Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comments. Your timeframe regarding the murder of the Princes coincides with the July Conspiracy, the first time we hear of any plot against King Richard. Some believe that the conspiracy moved Richard to order the Princes’ assassinations. Do you suggest that they might have been murdered even before the July Conspiracy, which is believed to have been set in motion after Richard left London on progress on July 20? You probably know that Alison Weir selects September 3rd as the date of the assassinations, since Tyrell was in London at the time. That seems rather late to me. You make a good point saying that Richard was not one to dawdle. And you present a powerful case for placing Buckingham at the center of the Rebellion, despite his unpopularity with Yorkist loyalists. After the failed July Conspiracy and its repercussions, the Yorkist loyalists were trying to regroup and expand their movement. News of the Princes’ deaths from a reliable source (Buckingham) moved the goalposts. Buckingham’s letter on September 24th presents a germ of a plan. You make a good point saying how fast it happened, which makes me wonder how long the plan was in the works. Morton was Buckingham’s prisoner, Margaret Beaufort was Buckingham’s cousin, and Margaret and Elizabeth Woodville had a middleman (Dr. Caerleon). Both Morton and Margaret supported the reinstatement of Edward V prior to word of his murder. It’s easy to understand why Margaret would support Edward — he had all those sisters. Yes, Richard smoothed Tudor’s path by killing the Princes. Not only did he give Tudor a greater prize to aim for, but he tied it to the moral outrage that was already brewing against Richard — his shock-and-awe usurpation, his murders and seizure of property without due process, his presumed murder of two young boys. It’s intriguing how you “flip the script” about who was caught “holding the bag” — Richard or Buckingham.

     Reply
4. 

   Robert Wyer on September 8, 2025 at 10:39 am

   Hi Pamela,

   I, as yourself, am interested in the workings of the conspirators and in a time-frame regarding their plotting. Concerning Buckingham, he might be seen as the most adroit, although the unluckiest of the plotters. I believe that it can be established that Buckingham was the mainspring of the whole uprising. His motivations will be revealed as self-preservation, I believe. One should never allow himself to be made into a “bag-holder”. It could prove ruinous.

   Sir Thomas More’s egregious error in his first paragraph, regarding the age (to the day!) of Edward 4 at his death, I believe he intended as a wink and a nudge for the wise reader. Thomas More was an attorney, of a profession habituated to the principle of getting the facts straight, and his laughable miscue of Edward’s age must be regarded as no mistake, but rather as More signaling that his History of Richard 3 was intended for the gullible types, and was not meant for the wise reader.

   I therefore wholly disregard More’s History, and consider that a wise reader will not cite More, except as something to be disbelieved.

   In my view, Thomas More’s History underscores the problem concerning the reliability of any report or history, touching upon the events in question. All accounts may be seen as problematic, from the reliability standpoint, although many historians cite those sources in their attempts to puzzle their way to the answers.

   In my view, the source which rates the highest marks for reliability is the report recorded by Alvaro Lopes de Chaves, in Livro de Apontamentos (1483-1489). De Chaves is described as “the private secretary to Alfonso V, King of Portugal at that time. Livro de Apontamentos translates as “Book of Notations” and the word “chronicle” has been used to describe it.

   You may already be familiar with the excerpt from that Portuguese source, cited in English. I copy it here:

   “… the Duke of Gloucester had in his power the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, the young sons of said king his brother, and turned them to the Duke of Buckingham, under whose custody the princes were starved to death.”

   Its reliability is established through the following considerations: This information would have been sent to Alfonso V by his Ambassador to the court of Richard 3, such activity being the duty of ambassadors. The ambassador would only report what he considered to be reliable information, worthy of reporting to his sovereign. Plus, the report is contemporary to the events. It is possible that Richard 3, himself, provided this report, concerning Buckingham’s role. The Ambassador and Secretary de Chaves, both, had every motive to faithfully record what was passed to them, so the question of invention or error can be dismissed. Also, the excerpt from the “chronicle” provides the only specifics that we have, concerning the fate of the princes, these specifics being reported contemporaneous to the events described. Ergo, this report should be considered as the most reliable report that is available on the question of the fate of the princes.

   This record, by Alvaro Lopes de Chaves, giving specifics on the fate of the princes, carries implications which I will present in a continuation of this.

   Reply
   • 

     Pamela Horter-Moore on September 11, 2025 at 1:58 pm

     Hi Robert,
     I am enjoying your fresh perspective on this history. I might not totally agree with a dismissal of Thomas More and other sources of that time, but do agree that they have their problems. Some more than others. I appreciate your highlighting the report by Alvaro Lopes de Chaves, which gets too little attention. I will respond to your next message shortly.

     Reply
5. 

   Robert Wyer on September 9, 2025 at 3:07 pm

   Hi Pamela,

   This presents my reconstruction of those events in question. We know that Buckingham remained in London, when Richard 3 left there July 21, but later caught up with Richard at Gloucester on July 31. We know that these two parted company August 2. Through our source Alvaro Lopes De Chaves, we can reasonably assume that Richard 3 intended that blame for the deaths of the princes be put squarely on Lord High Constable Buckingham.
   I believe that Buckingham learned of the fate, or fate intended, of the princes after Richard’s departure from London and that he, himself, left London to catch up with Richard 3 at Gloucester, to meet with Richard 3, (and to sound and measure him. I believe that Buckingham saw the need to dissemble sooner, rather later). Buckingham may have suspected, or he may have heard, that Richard intended him to be saddled with the blame for the murder of the princes. After the meeting, Richard and Buckingham parted company, Richard continuing his progress and Lord High Constable Buckingham headed, not for London (and the tower), but for his estate at Brecon, Wales, determined to plot Richard 3’s overthrow. Buckingham seems to have effectively dissembled toward Richard, as Richard 3 showed trust in him until Buckingham summoned the Welsh levy in October.

   Why would Richard shuffle the blame off on Buckingham? One obvious reason: to deflect the blame from himself. Why Buckingham? Because Richard was clever, and Lord High Constable Buckingham was a kingmaker and overmighty, and Richard knew from his own experience that such overmighty kingmakers spelled trouble for a king, as in the case of Warwick and Edward 4, Richard’s brother. With the blame shuffled off on Buckingham, Richard keeps his hands clean and Buckingham incurs the hatred of Edwardians. Now Buckingham is taken off at the knees because, at anytime, Richard can turn him over to vengeful Edwardians, or simply dismiss him without concern, knowing that Buckingham should have more enemies than friends.

   Thus, with Buckingham’s motives as I have put, his behavior is explained. I believe that Buckingham, no dummy, saw through Richard’s cleverness, and realized that he must overthrow Richard 3 or else face ruin. His speed in plotting reflected a sense of urgency, and rightly so, as Richard 3 might, at anytime, receive word of his true intentions. I do not believe that Buckingham had motives of personal gain, except to preserve himself against the “razing boar”.

   In his dealings with the other conspirators, Buckingham would have avowed that Richard swore that he would spare the princes but then murdered them, intending to fasten the blame on Buckingham and that, razed by the boar, Buckingham was moved to recover his honor by overthrowing Richard 3. This all makes kingmaker Buckingham a fine fellow in the eyes of those against Richard, and that Tudor fellow, what’s-his-name, gains at a stroke tremendous stature in the eyes of many Yorkists, now joined to Lancastrians.

   Now, let’s see if any agree that Alvaro Lopes de Chaves had a handle on the truth.

   Reply
   • 

     Pamela Horter-Moore on September 11, 2025 at 7:55 pm

     Thank you, Robert, for a new and fascinating take on Buckingham’s about-face, Richard’s duplicity, and the murder of the Princes. I have no strong opinions on the culpability of Richard or Buckingham except my conviction that they were murdered sometime during the Summer of 1483, and that Richard was responsible. His usurpation itself was the blow that doomed them, whether he himself ordered the deaths or not.

     Reply
6. 

   robert wyer on September 12, 2025 at 1:11 pm

   Hi Pamela,
   Thanks for your comments.

   I agree that Richard 3’s usurpation of the crown, of necessity, encompassed the death of the princes. I think that Richard 3 felt much malice against the Woodville clan, and that feelings of malice explains his readiness to do away with them all. I think he later realized that such a hasty and malicious policy was a costly mistake.

   Regarding the puzzle of Buckingham, I have endeavored to explain his motives, but any construction of his motives should be mostly conjectural. There is another case that may be construed, regarding Buckingham’s behavior: that he was at heart a Lancastrian, who saw the opportunity to promote the cause of Henry Tudor by aiding Richard’s usurpation. In this, Buckingham is seen as a clever and far-sighted schemer, who outwitted Richard and all the rest.
   If that was the case, he was very clever, indeed, although unlucky.

   Reply
   • 

     Pamela Horter-Moore on September 15, 2025 at 3:49 pm

     Thank you for your comments, Robert. Much remains conjecture. The incentive for Richard’s usurping the throne is understandable enough, but what prompted Richard to do it is another thing. I used to think that Richard’s hatred of the Woodvilles had much to do with it, but Rivers’ request before Edward IV’s death that Richard help him with a legal matter would suggest that the acrimony only went one way. Perhaps a more devastating quarrel was the one between Rivers and Hastings. Historians are still divided as to whether Richard was a very clever dissembler, one easily manipulated by flattery, or someone in between. Richard certainly was “the toast of the town” during the Winter of 1482 and 1483, and he stayed in London long enough for the sitting of Parliament. People like the Howards might have been offended enough by the Mowbray inheritance to flatter Richard and align themselves early with him. Michael Hicks suggests that the usurpation might have been planned as early as April. I’m not totally convinced that Edward IV wasn’t murdered, but, once again, this is nothing but conjecture.

     Of all the people of this period, Buckingham’s motives are the murkiest. He might have been motivated to support Richard’s usurpation out of pique for being forced to marry Katherine Woodville and for being treated like a nadir by Edward IV. As Richard’s royal-blooded ally, he had it made and might have anticipated years as Richard’s right-hand man, since he was only 28 at his death. People have suggested that Morton and Margaret Beaufort might have reminded Buckingham of his Lancastrian roots. I wonder whether you have read Francis Leary’s section on Richard III in “The Golden Longing” (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959). Like you, Leary thinks Buckingham was much more clever than his contemporaries gave him credit for. Leary calls Buckingham “the master Judas of his time.”

     Reply
7. 

   Robert Wyer on September 15, 2025 at 5:48 pm

   Hi Pamela,

   Yes, Buckingham is the enigma. All of the other main players may be easily understood, in their acts and deeds, but not Buckingham, who was heaped with offices and their income, by Richard 3, yet he turned against Richard 3 very early in the game.

   One interesting consideration: if Buckingham had really done in the princes, as reported by the Portuguese account, Henry Tudor would have all motive to suppress such news, as he was a confederate to the murderer, to benefit from the murders.

   Put yourself in the shoes of Henry vii. Would you not make certain, for yourself, the fate of the princes? Henry must have, as this involved critical matters of state. Yet, Thomas More makes no mention of any such deed by Henry vii. We do have, however, a box with the incomplete bones of the princes, mixed with other bones (chicken bones, for one) and recovered from under the staircase, as put in More’s History, but not removed therefrom, however, contrary to More’s History. The question: who dug up these bones and reburied them, if not Henry vii?

   Reply
   • 

     Pamela Horter-Moore on September 19, 2025 at 5:13 pm

     Thank you for your thoughtful comments, which reminded me of Francis Leary’s take on this matter in “The Golden Longing.” Buckingham is the real mystery man of this period. Redeemed sinner or unlucky schemer? Leary says that he was much smarter than anyone gave him credit for.

     Leary agrees with you on Henry’s reburying the Princes. He believes Buckingham ordered the murders, and Tyrell carried them out. He believes Tudor knew about it. Leary says that “Richard and Henry were tarred with the brush,” and “the master-Judas of his time was appropriately sold for money by one of his own creatures.” Leary’s hypothesis is intriguing, even if his prose is deep purple, and it seems to imply a late date for the murders. Like September 3rd, as Alison Weir suggested.

     I agree with you that Henry had every reason to suppress the murders, and perhaps this is what the quarrel (if indeed there was one) between Henry and Elizabeth Woodville was about (as dramatically portrayed in “The Shadow of the Tower,” with James Maxwell playing Henry VII). Elizabeth might have wanted a full investigation, and that was something Tudor wouldn’t give her, for good reason. He had nothing to gain from it. It would just remind people that he was the (as Christine Carpenter puts it) “the second-best substitute for Edward IV’s dead sons.” As it turned out, Tudor didn’t have to be guilty of the deaths of the Princes to be the major beneficiary of it. HE was the lucky one!

     Reply
8. 

   Robert Wyer on September 21, 2025 at 3:50 pm

   Hi Pamela,
   My thoughts are echoed in your comment. Let’s take the case of Tyrrell. This man was a close follower of Richard 3. Thomas More has him murdering the 2 princes, yet Henry 7 made him governor of Calais, an important position. If Tyrrell indeed murdered the two princes, he did Henry Tudor a valuable service. It is all a puzzle. Only one thing is certain, that Henry Tudor stepped surely over difficult ground and won the prize. I think he got away with it, ha ha.

   Reply
   • 

     Pamela Horter-Moore on September 24, 2025 at 9:18 pm

     Tyrell is certainly a fly in the ointment. Early in 1485, Richard made him government of Guisnes, and I don’t think he fought at Bosworth. So, Richard initially sent him out of the country, and Henry kept him there. It appears that Tyrell was a danger or an embarrassment to both Richard and Henry. Henry didn’t deal directly with the matter of the deaths of the Princes until the Warbeck imposture forced him to say something, years after the fact (more proof against the contention that Warbeck was who he said he was). I can’t see anyone as careful as Henry not doing a furtive investigation into the matter of the Princes once he became King, but he didn’t want to talk about the Princes any more than Richard did. All Henry did was insinuate until Tyrell was executed and he got his confession. Easy to assume Tyrell had a hand in it. Since he was sent to London in early September on an errand for Richard, Weir suggests September 3 as the date of their murder. The importance of the Princes forced Richard and Henry to bury their memory. Political secrets stay secret for generations, and remain dangerous for decades. I don’t think Henry had anything to do with the deaths of the Princes, but he certainly wasn’t innocent either. Yes, Henry should be dubbed the luckiest king of England.

     Reply
9. 

   Robert Wyer on September 22, 2025 at 12:44 pm

   Hi Pamela,

   as I reflect, Buckingham ever more seems central to the events. Would Richard 3 have seized the crown if not encouraged by Buckingham? I see Buckingham’s support as essential to Richards acts and deeds, a king-maker indeed, who then tried to pull the rug from under Richards feet, and perhaps would have except for bad luck.
   The next question, was it feasible for Buckingham to achieve a co-ordinated uprising within only seven weeks? It does not seem likely. All communications would be through messengers, some traveling to and fro across the Channel of England, dependent on the availability of shipping, weather, etc. This raises the question of when Buckingham determined to undo Richard. Alas for the blanks in the record, which if filled, we might see one of the most sublime of schemers of history.

   Reply
   • 

     Pamela Horter-Moore on September 25, 2025 at 7:02 pm

     Thanks for your comments, Robert.

     Buckingham wasn’t the only schemer. Resistance to Richard began right after his usurpation, as evidenced by the abortive uprising in London at the end of July. Elizabeth Woodville would naturally be working to reinstate her son, and Henry’s mother Margaret Beaufort was communicating with her through her physician. Richard warned Margaret’s husband Thomas Stanley to curb her political activism, but Stanley wasn’t totally unsympathetic. Other Yorkist loyalists of lesser renown were also involved in conspiracy against Richard.

     However, I agree that the rebellion quickly came together with a plan after Buckingham joined the resistance. Perhaps his revelation about the Princes (if he was the source) and his stature as a duke might have helped to give the resistance a wider range of participation despite his reputed unpopularity.

     I think there were people besides Buckingham who encouraged Richard to usurp the throne. The Howard family, for example, who felt cheated out of the Mowbray inheritance that had been given to Edward IV’s younger son. Little Richard and little Anne Mowbray were respectively 4 1/2 and 6 years old when they were married in a splended ceremony on January 15, 1478. After the little girl died in 1481, little Richard retained her inheritance, although the Howards were kin to the Mowbrays. Two days after he was declared King, Richard gave the Howards what they wanted. When Henry became King, Thomas Howard insinuated himself to him and kept his titles.

     Buckingham was essential to Richard’s usurpation because he too was royal blooded. His presence made Richard’s coup at Northampton/Stony Stratford more plausible to the moderates on the King’s Council. He was the one who pushed Richard’s claim on the assembly of confused and alarmed MPs and magnates in London on June 25 and June 26. And he was a prominent presence at Richard’s coronation. Richard trusted him enough to make him constable of England.

     Reply
10. 

    Robert Wyer on September 25, 2025 at 1:17 pm

    Hi Pamela, thanks for your comment

    You are well informed on the history of the era. There is a question, concerning Sir Thomas More, that perhaps you can answer: when was he first admitted to the privy council?

    I copy Encyclopedia Britannica concerning that:

    “It was not long before he attracted the attention of the young king and of Wolsey. The spirit with which he pleaded before the Star Chamber in a case of The Crown v. The Pope recommended him to the royal favour, and marked him out for employment. More obtained in this case judgment against the Crown. Henry, who was present in person at the trial, had the good sense not to resent the defeat, but took the counsel to whose advocacy it was due into his service. In 1514 More was made Master of the Requests, knighted, and sworn a member of the privy council. ”

    This says that More had favorably impressed the young King Henry 8 and so was drafted into the privy council in 1514. Yet other sources say that date is incorrect, and that 1518 was the date. The above excerpt gives good support to the 1514 date.
    Have you made any determinations on this?
    My interest lies in the fact that More started writing his History at about this time, and I do not believe that he wrote his History simply to amuse himself.

    By the way, the picture of the kid and the bike is not mine, and I have never seen it before. Some glitch got the ### thing posted next to my name, who knows how. Can it be undone?

    Reply
    • 

      Pamela Horter-Moore on September 29, 2025 at 5:09 pm

      Thanks for your comments, Robert. I’ve been interested in this period of history for decades now, and went full circle, from traditionalist to Ricardian to traditionalist again.

      Richard Marous’ biography of Thomas More provides some enlightenment. Thomas More’s father John (born around 1451) preceded his son in a successful career as a lawyer and judge. He was an admirer of Edward IV, and paid for masses for his soul. Not so much an admirer of Henry VII, since Thomas spoke publicly against Henry VII’s taxation, and his father was slapped in the Tower until he could pay a fine for restitution. Apparently, Thomas’ acquaintance with the prince who later became Henry VIII began early. Marous states that when Erasmus visited England for the first time in 1499, Thomas took him to Eltham Palace to meet the royal children, and they stayed for dinner. When Henry VII died, Thomas wrote poems for the new king’s coronation that rejoiced over the father’s demise and the son’s succession.

      According to Marous, Henry VIII kept Thomas busy, but Thomas didn’t really make a splash until he assisted in quelling the riots on so-called Evil May Day 1517. Shortly after, More was made a member of the King’s Council.

      At that time, More’s history was only one of several unpublished works. As a writer myself, I can say that writers might begin a project to amuse themselves, but eventually they’ll want to share it with others and maximize its coverage. Someone, perhaps Paul Murray Kendall, pointed out that More’s manuscript ends just about at the point where he has to introduce Tudor into the narrative.

      I think it’s reasonable to assume that More’s intended audience might have included Henry VIII and others. More had plenty of people who could have helped him form the narrative, including his own father. To me, the error of Edward IV’s age and the blanks throughout just demonstrate that the manuscript was still in progress.

      I understand that Gravatar works with WordPress, and occasional glitches occur. My webmaster points out that the comment with kid on the bike appears under a different email address and URL. Unless you submitted the comment using a different email, my guess is that this is a Gravatar glitch.

      Reply
11. 

    Robert Wyer on September 30, 2025 at 2:31 pm

    Hi Pamela,
    it is always good to get your insights.
    Master of Requests is, or was, a crown office, and so maybe some historians assumed that, being awarded that office, More was enlisted as a member of the privy council.
    I have to believe that More wrote his History with a careful eye toward what was politic and so obligatory. For example, his title “History of Richard III” permitted him to present a cartoonish image of Richard III as the evil villain, yet provide scope for a history of those times. As you pointed out, the history stops just before Henry Tudor enters the picture. Maybe this was his discretion, as hinted.

    Reply
    • 

      Pamela Horter-Moore on October 11, 2025 at 9:33 am

      Hi Robert. Thanks for your comments.

      I don’t concern myself too much with More’s “History” because he never finished it or published it. Others did that for him after his death. According to Alison Hanham (Richard III and His Early Historians), he left many works in draft. As a writer myself, I wouldn’t like it if someone published my unfinished works without knowing my intent for them. More was not the first person to present Richard as a cartoonish villain. More, John Rous, and others were using Richard as a device for melodrama or as a means to gild the Tudor Rose. Richard was easy prey because of his station, and because, unlike the Howards, he had no family in a position to defend him. The transformation of Richard from a human being to an inhuman monster is a crime against history, and the Ricardians’ greatest contribution has been their effort to give Richard the humanity that every person deserves, whether they are a villain, a hero, or someone in between. The problem is that the Ricardians have pushed their efforts to the other extreme, developing a cult of personality around Richard, as if they know Richard better than his contemporaries did. There is no doubt that Richard died an unpopular figure. People can manage to ruin their own reputations by the bad actions they commit, and such was the case for Richard. Although it is difficult to determine whether he was manipulated and goaded, or whether he cleverly connived to acquire power ruthlessly and unjustly.

      Reply
    • 

      Pamela Horter-Moore on October 11, 2025 at 10:26 am

      John Rous, a contemporary of Richard, was a Warwickshire priest with an attachment to the Neville family who died before 1492. His “History” was published in 1716. There are so few contemporary records preserved from Yorkist times that every one gets critical attention, whether it’s deserved or not. Hanham describes Rous’ account as suggesting “the fullness of malice.” The account is a “ragtag of gleanings” that have made their way into the folklore and narrative of the period. Rous stresses Buckingham’s influence over the events of Spring/Summer 1483. Rous claims that Richard lay in his mother’s womb for two years and was born with teeth and hair down to his shoulders. He said he was “like a scorpion” who poisoned his wife, locked up his mother-in-law, and contributed to the death of Henry VI (among Richard’s other crimes). He describes Richard as “small and short of face, with unequal shoulders.” Rous calls Richard an Anti-Christ.

      Then there’s the poem “Ode to Bosworth Field” by the Welsh poet Dafydd Llwyd ap Llewelyn ap Griffid of Malthafarn (1486): “The sad lipped Saracen… the little caterpillar of London, a servile Boar wrought penance upon Edward’s sons in prison. Shame on the sad lipped Saracen that he slew Christ’s angels. He slew without favor of the Bench his two young nephews. But the miracles of St. Nun, he caused disgrace, the bravery of cruel Herod (who ended his life as) a dog slain in a ditch” — Not the only one to compare Richard to King Herod and the slaying of the Innocents.

      These words provoke extravagant images. Many other contemporaries expressed their disfavor with Richard in less colorful language.

      Reply
12. 

    Robert Wyer on October 13, 2025 at 1:57 pm

    Hi Pamela,
    As always, it is good to have your comments. The bones of Richard reveal his spinal deformity. I once saw a man playing volley ball with his shirt off and with the same type of deformity, a grotesquely disfigured upper back, and a marvel to behold. He was tall. I was amazed that he played volleyball with no sign of a disability, leaping high to swat the ball or bending low to retrieve it from the ground. Seeing the spine so malformed, one would conclude that such a deformity would disable, but no.

    I am of the opinion that, although a failure as an uncle, Richard would have been a good king. In his short reign, he made badly needed reforms to English common law, so I understand. Of course, Richard, the usurper, was no innocent victim. Some justification may be put for his usurpation, more than for that of his successor, imo, but winning a battle remedies a lot of faults. Richard lost while Henry Tudor wisely based his claims to the throne as by right of conquest..argument closed!

    Reply
    • 

      Pamela Horter-Moore on October 14, 2025 at 9:56 am

      Thanks Robert.
      I consider Richard’s deformity no big deal, as it never stopped him from doing anything. It just became an exaggeration when people started to hate him. Yes, Richard had potential to be a good King. So did Edward V.

      Edward V, the unluckiest King of England; Henry VII, the luckiest. That Tudor luck! The posthumous child had a devoted uncle in Jasper Tudor (unlike Edward V) and a politically astute mother in Margaret Beaufort who devoted her life to his interests. Jasper snatched him out of England and into exile at the age of 14 in 1471 when Edward IV regained the throne, so no one in England knew anything about him. In 1483, Tudor was so unknown in England at age 26 that he could be packaged as the perfect knight. He must have been a very plausible personality to the 500 Yorkist loyalists who were in exile with him, because they supported his kingship on the strength of his Christmas Day promise to marry the daughter of Edward IV and “rule with her” (Croyland Chronicles’ spin) when Richard was defeated.

      Richard was the opposite of Henry; everybody knew him. I disagree with you as to which usurpation was the more justified. Richard’s usupration signaled a moral failing on his part. Henry never made a vow to support Edward V, while Richard made one several times, beginning when Edward was a baby and Richard was appointed one of the administrators of his affairs. Some people might not care whether someone breaks a vow, but obviously the Yorkist loyalists cared because 40% of the southern officeholders rebelled against Richard, were attainted or went into exile. Richard had to replace them with men from the North which was extremely unpopular.

      If I knew of a man who had been designated to protect his brother’s children but instead screwed them out of their inheritance, I would recognize his turpitude and I wouldn’t trust him or have busines with him, regardless of his rationalization for doing so. On the other hand, Henry was the squeaky-clean unknown — better the devil you don’t know than the devil you do.

      But it’s not just a matter of Richard’s destroying his brother’s children. In his powerlust, he destroyed Edward’s strongest supporters, took their lives, liberty, and property without due process, and denied Edward V due process as well. He divided the Yorkist party and destroyed the dynasty. He turned when might have been a peaceful succession into bloody chaos becauses he didn’t have the moral courage to deal with the issues that were bound to come when dealing with a headstrong adolescent and a splintered court. He destroyed the institutions and conventions that the English expected in a time of peace.

      Even then, England was exceptionally free because of the concept of government by popular consent (at least in theory). After acknowledging that Edward’s sons were dead, the Yorkist loyalists had every right to turn against Richard and select another candidate as King. That Henry was a clever opportunist who would oppress his wife and her Yorkist kin and rule the kingship as a paranoid despot was something they didn’t bargain for.

      Reply
13. 

    Robert Wyer on October 14, 2025 at 2:18 pm

    Hi Pamela,
    Your comments are always interesting and informative. Henry Tudor paranoid! – that I can believe, ha ha. Those times would make any king paranoid, with the ever-shifting loyalties of the nobility. And, no, one should never put his faith in princes.

    Henry Tudor owed nothing to Richard III or Edward v, neither, and perhaps his gaining the throne should not be termed as “usurpation”, as I put. Richard’s certainly was that. But with Tudor, it was not a question of law or tradition, but of a faction claiming the throne and Henry Tudor winning on the last cast of the die, lucky fellow that he was.

    Yes, Richard swore fealty to Edward v, and he may be called a profound dissembler or viewed as a treacherous snake. Thus affairs of state. I think Richard must have resented the Queen and her relatives, and mistrusted them, to the point of hatred. I think many of the established nobility felt the same. Richard would have dissembled the whole while, toward the Queen and her party. The ultimate blame is due to Edward IV, imo, as he behaved in a most foolish and self-indulgent manner, as a young man. Many saw his union with Elizabeth Grey as the mistake of a foolish, callow youth. I do not doubt that this union led to the troubles of his reign, starting with Warwick’s turnabout and ending with the extermination of the “broomweed” dynasty.

    One of those tortured by Richard III was Sir Robert Wyatt, grandfather of Sir Thomas Wyatt the Younger, of Wyatt’s Rebellion. The account put that “the tyrant found it in his heart to rack” the goodly Wyatt while he was imprisoned in the tower. “You must swear that I am your master” Richard demanded, as Wyatt responded “I cannot, for Henry Tudor is my master”. Ha ha. The account goes on to say that Wyatt befriended a cat that brought him pigeons to eat, through the window of his cell, and so he survived the cruel tyrant. I love history.

    Reply
    • 

      Pamela Horter-Moore on October 16, 2025 at 3:12 pm

      Hi Robert. Thanks for your enlightening comments.

      Yes, you echo Lord Mountjoy’s warning to his sons not to get to close to princes; it was a dangerous position to be in.

      I agree with your comments about Henry Tudor. He was just LUCKY!

      Talking again about Edward V’s ill luck: Many of his strongest supporters hated each other. The quarrel between Hastings and Rivers was just months old when Edward IV died. More’s deathbed scene with Edward IV trying to reconsile Hastings and the Woodvilles for his children’s sake seems plausible enough.

      If Richard hated the Woodvilles, he did a good job hiding it except around the time of George of Clarence’s fall. However, I think blaming the Woodvilles for Richard’s usurpation is rationalizaton, because their power evaporated on April 29-May 1, 1483. In actuality, their power always did reside in Edward IV, and crumbled when he died. The only advantage the Woodvilles had was their influence over the royal children. But the royal children didn’t have to be destroyed in order to sideline the Woodvilles.

      If Richard was sincere in his support of Edward V, he handled the coup of April 29-30 in a ham-fisted manner. Elizabeth Jenkins might excuse him as a soldier, but that says little about his ability to deal with people, and that is a critical skill for a Protector. IMO, Hastings would have been a better choice, but neither Richard nor the Woodvilles would have accepted that.

      By Edward’s second reign, the Woodvilles had blended into the body politic, but that didn’t mean that the nobility and moderates wanted them running the country. Even the Croyland Chronicler says that the “more prudent” members of Council thought that the young king should be kept from his “uterine uncles and brothers.” The Woodvilles could have been allowed to keep property and titles, and honored as the King’s kinsmen, while being denied real power. That might have been a bitter pill for young Edward to accept, but it would have been just another step in his growing up from schoolboy to administrator. Richard’s mistreatment of the Woodvilles just made them more plausible and sympathetic.

      Yes, the marriage between Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was seemingly unequal, but he could have done worse. He could have married a tanner’s daughter like the mother of the patriarch William I. I can’t help but wonder whether the marriage would have been more acceptable had Elizabeth’s father been the Luxembourg prince and Jacquetta the English gentlewoman instead of the other way around. Croyland thinks it was the marriage of Margaret of York to Charles the Bold that alienated Warwick, but Scofield indicates that Warwick left the room whenever Richard Woodville entered, so I think the Burgundian marriage was just more fuel for the fire.

      Reply
14. 

    Robert Wyer on October 14, 2025 at 2:39 pm

    I should say Henry Wyatt, not Robert.

    Reply
    • 

      Pamela Horter-Moore on October 16, 2025 at 3:24 pm

      Thanks for the story about Henry Wyatt, Robert. I had never heard it before, but it is a wonderful legend. I, too, love history. How can fiction be stranger?

      Reply
15. 

    Robert Wyer on October 17, 2025 at 1:58 pm

    Hi Pamela,
    Henry Wyatt survived to get his portrait painted by the master — Hans Holbein, the younger. That portrait was copied by another artist who added a cell window and a cat dragging a pigeon through the window. It was said that Henry Wyatt was partial to cats ha ha.

    Yes, history surpasses fiction in all ways, including strangeness, as you put. What could be stranger than the case of false, fleeting, perjured Clarence, his puzzling kidnap and judicial murder of Annette Tywnho, the sequel to that and his fate in a butt of Malmsey! The whole episode is intriguing.

    I think Richard III long mistrusted the Woodvilles, and that the fate of his brother Clarence was central to his feelings toward them. The Woodville party may have sensed this. There are currents in such affairs that are palpable to the main actors, unperceiveable by others.
    The sense that I get is that Richard, Buckingham, Hastings, and their party believed that they must strike first, lest the Woodvilles gain the upper hand. I do not consider myself able to judge the situation, at this distance, whether or not they had any cause to “pre-empt” the Woodville party. The Woodvilles 2,000 man force may have alarmed their rivals. It is certain that the Woodvilles were caught unawares, poor devils.

    It was reported that, at Stoney Stratford, Edward v wept upon Richard telling him about his uncle’s arrest. This twelve year old realized that the end was nigh for him and his own, so we may assume that the frail position of the Woodville party was fully appreciated by this youngster. This tells much about the tenseness of the situation, and that young Edward v had been tutored, no doubt, concerning who were the good guys and who were the bad guys, Edward iv’s deathbed attempts at healing notwithstanding.

    I do not believe that Richard iii ever intended that Edward v should reign. This divided him from Hastings and so Richard resorted to the ax to demonstrate his power and his resolve to do away with any opposition, a sort of terror tactic. Catsby betrayed his master Hastings, Hasting having revealed himself to Catsby as determined to resist Richard and thus the flavor of the times. We recoil from such brutality, as shown by Richard in his beheading Hastings on the spot.

    The mother of Wm the Conquerer makes your point and another fine tale, tanner’s daughter that she was. It is said that her father awoke the next morning to an emissary sent by her abductor, bringing valuable gifts, lucky father of a charming young lady ha ha!

    Reply
    • 

      Pamela Horter-Moore on October 20, 2025 at 12:08 pm

      Thanks for the story about Henry Wyatt. Too bad they didn’t have Holbein during Yorkist times, because the portraits are awful.

      George didn’t need the Woodvilles to make him behave like a jerk because it just came naturally. So, I don’t know why Richard would blame them. If George had been anybody else, Edward would have offed him long before. George was never very stable, but the death of his wife unhinged him. He was consumed by envy of Edward IV, and his fight with Richard demonstrates that both of them were grasping. Margaret Beauchamp, Warwick’s widow, was left beholden to them, and it was mostly her family’s property to begin with. George wasn’t even 30 when he died, but his career was one of cupidity, malice, and disloyalty.

      The Woodvilles were unpopular with the nobility because there were so many of them. The Queen, whose main interest was aggrandizing her family and protecting her children, made sure that they married into the best families in England, which narrowed the marriage field for everyone else. But the Queen Consort of England rarely gets a break. If she’s a foreigner, they dislike her for being a foreigner. If she’s English, they dislike her because she is one of their own. Sort of like Jesus preaching in Nazareth, I suppose.

      It’s clear the Queen was in the driver’s seat in Council immediately after Edward died, but that didn’t last. She lost the argument about the size of the escort, but the moderates still didn’t like the idea of Rivers coming to London with the King and a small army. Hastings was particularly nervous because he and Rivers had recently quarrelled. According to Mancini, Hastings was glad that the coup at Northampton/Stony Stratford had resulted in no bloodshed, which suggests that all he was looking for was removing the King from Rivers’ control and shutting down the Woodvilles.

      Someone reminded me that a 2,000-man escort could not be easily accommdated in one town, and that St. George Day celebrations might still be going on in the villages. The King’s escort left Ludlow on April 24, over a week after hearing about Edward’s death. The coronation was originally scheduled for May 4, which seems like hurrying things along. However, the innocence of young Edward’s household lies in the rapidity with which they were outmaneuvered and captured. If Rivers had malicious intent, there would be evidence of a counteraction. Rivers would have rushed the King to London and been a no-show at the appointment with Richard and Buckingham at Northhampton on April 29.

      Reply
    • 

      Pamela Horter-Moore on October 20, 2025 at 12:26 pm

      The coup at Stony Stratford was a tragedy for Edward V. Not only did he lose his maternal uncle, but his half-brother, and chamberlain Thomas Vaughan. Vaughan was not a Woodville toady, but a Yorkist stalwart since the 1450s. Young Edward also lost his tutor Robert Alcock and the familiar faces that Richard and Buckingham replaced with their own. Edward knew that the world as he knew it was over. He had been the center of the household at Ludlow, and he knew these men, their foibles, and how to get around them. All of a sudden, someone to whom he hadn’t spoken 20 words all his life was calling the shots.

      There is no evidence that the Woodvilles had poisoned young Edward’s mind against Richard. Obviously, whatever opinion Edward had of Richard soured after the arrest of his household officers, the dismissal of his escort, and the flight of his family into sanctuary. Edward knew he was a captive because he told his doctor that Richard and Buckingham took turns watching him because they thought he might escape (Mancini). Before the coup, Edward and Richard had encountered each other on state occasions, but probably said little to each other. Why would they talk at length? We have only one instance I know of where Edward and Richard exchanged words before April 1483. During the banquet held in the Prince’s honor at Westminster in November 1477, the 7-yeaer-old thanked his uncle for pledging his fealty “so humbly.”

      I’m inclined to agree with you that Richard never intended to let Edward rule. I think the usurpation was planned in advance when Richard was in London for Christmas and the sitting of Parliament in Winter 1482/1483. I don’t think the Howards have gotten the blame they deserve for helping to orchestrate the usurpation. The timing of Edward’s death was perfect for the usurper. Althought Edward’s heir was a very promising 12-year-old, he was still a schoolboy. To wait longer was to give young Edward fledging time. This suggests that Edward IV was murdered. He certainly didn’t appear to be a sick man when he was running around preparing for war during the early months of 1483.

      Reply
16. 

    Robert Wyer on October 20, 2025 at 2:34 pm

    Hi Pamela,
    thanks for your comments.
    My point of course being that there were two parties: the Woodvilles and their supporters were one, the other party were those who despised and mistrusted them. Also, it is difficult to measure the degree of animosity, as all would have been careful not to reveal their hand too openly. Surely, however, the Woodvilles knew that feelings of animosity were borne by others toward them. I do not doubt that Clarence was one who bore such feelings.

    Following the death of Edward IV, those who hated the Woodvilles showed their hand. The Woodville party no doubt understood Richard’s intentions when he arrested Lord Rivers and his kindred. The Queen understood, she sought sanctuary immediately. Edward v understood; he wept. The others of the Woodville party understood. I do not put blame on the Woodvilles in pursuing their interests, not on the other party. In fact, the moral censure of historical figures is not the best way of presenting history, imo. People act according to their interests, or as they see them.

    Richard acted with the support of others in the nobility. Thus the anti-Woodville party devoured the Woodvilles, who would have been justified if they themselves had prepared their own measures against such a fate. In retrospect, Lord Rivers might be viewed as faultworthy, in that he separated from the 2,000 man escort of his nephew, giving the opening to Richard and Buckingham. We may say that his naivete led to the downfall of the Woodvilles. The anti-Woodville party may be explained as engaging in pre-emptive acts which, by their lights, were needful to their well-being, it being easy to ascribe evil motives to those that you hate.

    It is my belief that Edward IV executed his brother Clarence at the urging of the Woodvilles, who would have regarded Clarence as their enemy. That Clarence was a jerk was little cause to drown him. I have read that Clarence challenged the legitimacy of Edward’s offspring, and that may be the real cause. Reportedly, Edward IV hesitated before executing Clarence, and then afterward ever lamented that execution. The Queen would never have allowed Edward IV to forget that Clarence meant to supplant him as king, in joining with Warwick. The whole Warwick fracas, of course, was due to Edward’s marriage to the his queen. All of the actors acted on their own judgement and perceived interests, except Edward IV. That fellow acted on impulse and he should have been provided a concubine, imo, to keep him out of trouble haha. I, myself, have no preference for one party over the other.

    I take that back. If Richard III had won at Bosworth, Henry viii would be lost to history, what an awful thought!

    Reply
    • 

      Pamela Horter-Moore on October 23, 2025 at 9:44 am

      Thanks, Robert.
      I agree that the nobility, Hastings, and the moderates wanted the Woodvilles sidelined — at least politically but not permanently. Interesting that a woman and a boy grasped early what others didn’t following the coup at Northampton/Stony Stratford. In Micheal Hicks’ book “Edward IV — Reputations,” he writes “What Edward failed to realize was the untrustworthiness and cunning of his brother, which nobody else perceived either. Or perhaps the Queen did. The moment Gloucester staged his first coup, she presumed his intention was usurpation and was not dissuaded thereafter, unlike almost everyone else, who thought her conduct irrational. (227)” Perhaps Edward IV DID perceive, but Richard was his only living brother and the second-most powerful person in the kingdom. Edward could hardly expect Richard to play second fiddle to anyone else he might select as Protector.

      I would say most historians present history as moral drama. Most of us seek heroes and villains in order to make sense of the past. Hicks begins his book on Edward IV by explaining how early historians argued as to whether Edward was “saved,” as if a historical figure’s soul was theirs to judge.

      Rivers’ splitting from the escort to meet his appointment with Richard and Buckingham would be really stupid if he were guilty. It’s more proof that he had no intention of confronting them militarily. In a book about Richard III, Hicks muses that neither Rivers nor Hastings was politically naive, but walked into Richard’s trap not expecting an ambush.

      George was even more unstable after his wife’s death. Besides the illegal “trial” and execution of Annette Tywnho, he tried to circumvent Edward to arrange a foreign marriage for himself, and had horoscopes made of Edward and his son. He was tried in Parliament and allowed to defend himself. It is likely that Edward and Elizabeth pushed for the verdict they wanted, but it was Parliament that sentenced him.

      Considering the difficulty Henry VIII had when he went to the Church to annul his first marriage, I am confident that any information George might have had regarding Edward’s marriage would be embarrassing but would not result in an annulment by the Church. According to canon law, “Marriage possesses the favor of the law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of the marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.” The Church has a procedure for dealing with the sacrament, and it has nothing to do with the popularity of the marriage or what a group of self-interested laymen and compromised priests think of it. I doubt that the Church would invalidate a marriage that had been recognized by Christendom for 13 years in 1477, and 19 years in 1483. The time to investigate the validity of the marriage was 1464-1465, not 1477. Warwick and many others would have welcomed the opportunity, and Eleanor Butler, the woman in question, never came forward, nor did her Talbot kin.

      When Edward married Elizabeth, he knew it would anger his elders, which was why he did it in secret and kept it hidden for months. A love match is a beautiful thing, but can a king afford it?

      Reply
17. 

    Robert Wyer on October 23, 2025 at 5:27 pm

    thank you for your comments Pamela,

    Yes, truly, many who trusted Gloucester should not have, including his brother Edward. Earl Rivers should not have. Hastings should not have. Thomas More (I think) said Richard made friendships readily, but would “spoil and pill’ those friendships. Hastings trusted Wm Catesby, who turned out to be Gloucester’s man. Richard III trusted Buckingham and.. whoops!

    Whom to trust? that was a big problem. The Woodvilles no doubt sensed the disdain felt toward them. King Edward raised them up, to the malicious envy of many who wished them thrown down. The hostility of the king’s brother Clarence would be a source of anxiety for them. Then there was Bishop Stillington, who was saying awful things. Also, the powerful Lord Hastings had good cause to resent he Woodville clan. Such a position to be in, the Woodvilles!

    The murderer of Earl Rivers, Lord Northumberland, had the grace to give Rivers notice of his death, and allowed him to write a will. The will reportedly named William Catesby as an executor. Catesby was Hastings man. Rivers also requested that Richard of Gloucester should see the will proved. Thus the futile attempts of a doomed man to summon good faith from those who were glad to see him murdered.

    As for Clarence, he never lived down his betrayal of Edward 4, when he joined to Warwick and aimed to supplant Edward as king. Who could forget that? A family quarrel turned most ugly, and would-be king Clarence got sour looks thereafter. I think that unhinged him and clouded his judgement. If he impugned the legitimacy of Edward’s offspring, he was suicidal.
    Edward was the sole prosecutor in Clarence’s attainder trial, and Clarence defended himself, so we are told. Parliament voted with the king. Imagine, a king demanding attainment of his brother, what a time that was.

    The claim of Bishop Stillington of a pre-contract is deprecated by those who say it is not well documented. But what, pray tell, is well documented from that era? If Stillington came forth with such a report, it could only be because he hated the Woodvilles, otherwise he would have, and should have, kept his mouth shut. If Stillington made such a claim, it could only have been for the purpose of overthrowing the Woodvilles and their royal brood. Stillington wound up on the wrong side of Henry Tudor, dying in prison.

    Jane Shore had her marriage annulled, we are told. She presented her case to three Bishops, it is reported. She claimed impotency in her husband, Shore. Now what is an impotent man doing, taking a wife? I think that here we see the influence of Edward vi, as a mere commoner could not have gotten so far with such a claim or request. One must have some stroke for that. And why was she thereafter known as Shore’s Wife? My point being that marriages were then undone according to who you know. Henry the viii could not get the pope to act for him, as the pope was prisoner of the Hapsburg monarch, who would not permit the pope to rid Henry viii of Catarina of Castille. In other words, it was a matter of international politics. Henry had to take matters into his own hands. Don’t you just love history.

    Reply
    • 

      Pamela Horter-Moore on October 27, 2025 at 5:49 pm

      Thank you, Robert. I enjoy your insightful and erudite comments.

      Ambitious people who long for power and wealth fight in an arena where there are rules to be ignored, because the motivation is hardly altuistic. There is little correlation between ambition and abililty, and less between ambition and trustworthiness. Humans want to believe their leaders are better people than they are, which I guess is one reason why historians can’t resist looking for heroes and villains. And why humans have been fooled by charlatans-in-office throughout history.

      The Woodvilles were nouveau riche, which meant that they were disliked as upstarts by old blood, and disliked as opportunists by their peers. A few generations before, the Nevilles had been in the same social position — a large family on the make that made good marriages and acquired power, territory, and titles with time. Change of this sort is not welcome by those benefiting from the status quo.

      Rivers was the most talented and versatile of the Woodville men. Richard Grey was young, in his early or mid-20s. Thomas Vaughan had been a Yorkist stalwart since at least the 1450s. He is named in the same attainder naming Richard, Duke of York; Edward, Earl of March; and Edmund, Earl of Rutland, in 1459. He risked his life on Edward IV’s account early in his reign. What Michael Hicks asks in his bio of Richard III is why would Northumberland and Ratcliffe murder these former household officers of Edward V unless they knew that Edward wouldn’t be King much longer.

      You make an interesting point about George. After betraying Edward IV, he discovered he was still supplanted by Edward of Lancaster. So, what did he gain by his betrayal other than a wife? The brothers’ female kin smoothed the waters so that George changed side. However, once Edward was restored, George and Richard began fighting over the Neville girls and their inheritance, giving Edward no peace. Croyland says that all three brothers “were possessed of such surpassing talents that, if they had been able to live without dissensions, such a threefold cord could never have been broken.”

      Stillington was a member of council and keeper of the privy seal during Edward’s first reign. If he knew anything negative about the marriage at that time, that would have been the best time to divulge it. Once Elizabeth started validating the marriage by having a child every eighteen months from 1466 through 1480, he should have kept his mouth shut. The Catholic church was and is big on the concept of MARRIAGE + SEX = CHILDREN, so poor impotent Will Shore didn’t have a chance. The enemies of Edward’s and Elizabeth’s marriage wouldn’t have to worry about angering Elizabeth’s powerful foreign kin as Henry VIII had to worry about Catherine of Aragon’s kin; Elizabeth’s Luxembourg relatives were indifferent, since her mother Jacquetta had committed the ‘sin’ of marrying below her class.

      Reply
18. 

    Robert Wyer on October 24, 2025 at 12:13 pm

    Catarina of Aragon, that is

    Reply
19. 

    Miriam Bernardo on October 27, 2025 at 10:35 am

    So I have already found two errors in this timeline which made me stop reading the rest.

    The first is the statement that Titulus Regius noted Edward IV’s illegitimacy inferring that Cecily Neville had committed adultery in his procreation. This is false. The only illegitimacy of birth that this Act addresses is that of Edward IV’s children with Elizabeth Woodville due to his pre-contract with Eleanor Talbot (nee Butler).

    The second is that Rivers named Catesby and Russell when in fact it was Richard III that was named as the executor of his will.

    Up until the point of this timeline I also noted the increasing bias towards Richard III. That combined with the above was enough for me to stop taking this seriously.

    I would truly love to read something one day with simply noted facts that include any noted bias and political influence along with proven errors noted when quoting a contemporary source (not post contemporary as that is simply gossip and propaganda in my opinion) and facts from the surviving contemporary records and any references those records note or make.

    Otherwise materials like this are nothing more than rumours and juicy gossip and should be treated as that.

    Reply
    • 

      Pamela Horter-Moore on October 30, 2025 at 9:56 am

      I’ve noted your comments, but I suggest you read the following passage again because you have totally misconstrued it. I wrote: “In 1484, when the Act ‘Titulus Regius’ was passed, Richard allowed the allegations of bastardy to be INDIRECTLY leveled again, having himself described as ‘the undoubted son of the Duke of York.'” Note that the operative word in this sentence is INDIRECTLY. By allowing himself to be called “the undoubted son,” Richard and his Parliament INFERRED that there might be some sons who weren’t. I never claimed that the Titulus Regius involved Edward’s paternity; that is what you erroneously read into it.

      Furthermore, Rivers named the following people as the executors of his will: Russell, the bishop of Lincoln; Alcock, the bishop of Worcester; Husy, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench; Bryan, Chief Judge of the Commonplace; William Tunstall, Robert Poynz, Richard Haute, William Catesby, Andrew Dymmok, and Thomas Thorysby. This is directly from Rivers’ will which was printed in full by Susan Higginbotham in her book “The Woodvilles,” and collaborated by Paul Murray Kendall who cites Excerpta Historia, London, 1831, as his source in his bio of Richard III. Rivers did have a place for Richard in his will. I modernize the language here, but I encourage you to look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me. Rivers writes: “Over this, I humbly beseech my lord of Gloucester in the Worship of Christ’s passion and for the merit and welfare of his soul to comfort, help, and assist as supervisors for the very trust of this testament that my executors may with his pleasure fulfill this my Last Will which I have made the day abovesaid.”

      Ricardians might disagree with you about my so-called Ricardian bias.

      So, by all means, stop reading. That is your perogative. It’s my perogative too that I no longer entertain your comments. I don’t claim to know everything, and I am not perfect. However, I do know that it is far easier to criticize other people’s content than to create one’s own content and stand by it.

      Reply
20. 

    Robert Wyer on October 28, 2025 at 3:28 pm

    Hi Pamela, thanks for your compliments.
    That is a good point, that you cited from Hicks, that Northumberland seemed to have little fear of a mature and retributive King Edward V, as a possibility. I think that Edward V’s fate was clear at this time, that is, that the Protector must continue his murderous course. Gloucester would have been sure of his man Percy, Earl of Northumberland, that he would put an end to Rivers, Grey, and Vaughan. Yet at Bosworth, the Earl held his force in the rear of the battle, and never participated in that struggle. The victor Henry Tudor imprisoned Percy in the tower, but released him after a few months. No doubt Percy swore that he never intended to resist Henry Tudor. Some think that Percy’s behavior at Bosworth was unintentional, rather than otherwise, but I do not. Gloucester had problems with the loyalty of his followers, it seems.

    I see Stillington as one who turned against Edward IV. The reason why is unknown, I think, but the Bishop was the source of all the questions about the “legitimacy” of Edward’s marriage, and he must have known that he was undermining the throne with his account of Lady Talbot and hot-to-trot Edward IV.

    Clarence’s problem is that he thought that he was going to be king. It is hard to climb down from such fancy, and everything that followed would be only bitter pills for Clarence. He picked a quarrel with Gloucester over division of the Neville estate, but this was mostly a matter of precedence and prestige, Clarence vs his younger brother Gloucester. Clarence had little influence in the kingdom, and won no personal victories, but was duped by Warwick into treachery against his brothers, only to have the rug pulled from under his feet and suffer in the personal regard of his family, Edward IV, Gloucester, and therefore in the regard of other notables of the realm. I do not see much talent in Clarence, myself. I agree that the brotherly divisions among the last of the broomweeds contributed to the extinction of that line. Clarence and Gloucester would have agreed on the question of Edward’s offspring, whether illegitimate or not, so perhaps these two had found a common cause by the time of Clarence’s “malmsey” event.

    Reply
    • 

      Pamela Horter-Moore on November 5, 2025 at 8:28 am

      Well done, Robert!

      Thank you!

      Once Gloucester executed Hastings and arrested a host of other supporters of Edward V, there was no going back. Imprisonment is temporary, and everyone could have moved forward if Edward’s household officers would have been released, but the ambush and exeution of the King’s chamberlain without due process was a bridge too far.

      There are hints prior to April 30 that might infer what Gloucester was going to do. We have More’s story about the lawyer Potter’s prediction right after Edward IV’s death that Gloucester would take the throne. Richard attended Edward’s 1482 Christmas celebrationn at Westminster and stayed throughout the sitting of Edward’s last Parliament, arriving in York in early March, according to Kendall. During that time, his exploits against the Scots received rave reviews from the MPs. His ally John Wode was elected Speaker of the House of Commons. He was “the toast of the town.” At 30, he was at the peak of his abilities, and probably had many occasions to compare himself with his seemingly indolent older brother who (wisely) couldn’t be coaxed to join him in his war against Scotland. The Howards lost out on the Mowbray inheritance. There was plenty of motivation for intrigue during the Winter of 1482-1483. Of course, this is speculation. But perhaps that was when the plot against Edward IV and his children started.

      I think Northumberland supported Richard’s usurpation because he thought getting Richard out of the North and into the kingship would let the Percys regain the prominence in the North that they had before the Nevilles, the Stanleys, and other prominent families gained a presence there. Christine Carpenter writes “Richard had never succeeded in becoming anything more than a usurper, and the disloyalty around him on the last day of his life reflects that fact…the South had made Henry into a real candidate for the throne and impelled the northern lords to doubt Richard’s ability to win.”

      I agree with you against Clarence. He didn’t have many redeeming traits, and he lacked Richard’s discretion in choosing the winning side and keeping his mouth shut. Richard was smarter than George, and Edward was smarter than both of them. Between Edward and Henry, I’m not sure, except that Henry had the good sense to appropriate Edward’s successes when he became King, such as accepting the loyalty of former enemies if they came crawling to him and treating them as loyal subjects if they served him well (i.e., Thomas Howard).

      Reply
21. 

    Robert Wyer on November 12, 2025 at 11:11 am

    Hi Pamela, thanks for your comments.

    I did not know that Gloucester enjoyed popular success just before the death of Edward IV. That could explain his boldness, and I believe that he was determined on his course when he executed Hastings. My guess is that he meant Hasting’s execution to shock and cow any would-be opposition to his grab for the throne. Ditto regarding his execution of Rivers, Grey, Vaughan. His ruthlessness may have worked, in that he got himself crowned and succeeded his brother Edward as king. As I think you agree, Richard of Gloucester, in murdering the princes, did Henry Tudor a great favor and for himself, none.

    Reply