Edward V of England - death cause

Started by Private on Sunday, November 10, 2013
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing all 19 posts

if you look at the wiki pedia link it suggests that he was not beheaded but was visited by a doctor of the time and may have been ill and passed away from attempts to cure him..
his hiding from public view After Richard III's accession, the princes were gradually seen less and less within the Tower, and by the end of the summer of 1483 they had disappeared from public view altogether.

Dominic Mancini recorded that after Richard III seized the throne, Edward and his younger brother Richard were taken into the "inner apartments of the Tower" and then were seen less and less until they disappeared altogether. During this period Mancini records Edward was regularly visited by a doctor, who reported that Edward, "like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him."[7] The Latin reference to "Argentinus medicus" had previously been translated to mean "a Strasbourg doctor"; however, D.E. Rhodes suggests it may actually refer to "Doctor Argentine", whom Rhodes identifies as John Argentine, an English physician who would later serve as provost of King's College, Cambridge, and as doctor to Arthur, Prince of Wales, eldest son of King Henry VII of England (Henry Tudor).[5]

Edward and his brother Richard's fate after their disappearance remains unknown, but many believe that they were murdered. The suspects include King Richard (the most widely accepted theory[8]); Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who was accused of the murder by a contemporary chronicler[dubious – discuss];[9] Richard's servant James Tyrrell, who in 1502 was alleged to have confessed to committing the murder on Richard's orders;[10] Henry Tudor, who defeated Richard at Bosworth Field and took the throne as Henry VII; and Margaret Beaufort, Henry's mother.[11] There is however "no proof that the Princes were killed by anyone".[11]

Thomas More wrote that the princes were smothered to death with their pillows, and his account forms the basis of William Shakespeare's play Richard III, in which Tyrrell murders the princes on Richard's orders. Subsequent re-evaluations of Richard III have questioned his guilt, beginning with William Cornwallis early in the 17th century.In the period before the boys' disappearance, Edward was regularly being visited by a doctor; historian David Baldwin extrapolates that contemporaries may have believed Edward had died either of an illness (or as the result of attempts to cure him).

Bones belonging to two children were discovered in 1674 by workmen rebuilding a stairway in the Tower. On the orders of King Charles II, these were subsequently placed in Westminster Abbey, in an urn bearing the names of Edward and Richard. The bones were reexamined in 1933 at which time it was discovered the skeletons were incomplete and had been interred with animal bones. It has never been proven that the bones belonged to the princes.

Erica Howton your thoughts?

The short answer is that no one knows.

It ended up in a project that was orginally supposed to be for people beheaded under goverment orders for things like theft treason and the like.. that's why i brought it up

Probably not the best place for it ;)

I used to belong to the Riccardian Society. I have a shelf full of speculation about the fate of the Princes in the Tower, how they died, who killed them, and whether the bones discovered under the Tower stair are really them.

It all comes down to many theories and no hard data.

Scope of Project of which the the profile was in..
should I amend it?

This project aims to identify people executed on order of the Kings and Queens of England and Great Britain.
Overview

Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; having sexual intercourse with the sovereign's consort, with his eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession. Several other crimes have historically been categorised as high treason, including counterfeiting money and being a Catholic priest.

High treason was formerly distinguished from petty treason, a treason committed against a subject of the sovereign, the scope of which was limited by statute to the murder of a legal superior. Petty treason comprised the murder of a master by his servant, of a husband by his wife, or of a bishop. Petty treason ceased to be a distinct offence from murder in 1828.

guy fawkes for example would fit in here..

@Edward V, King of England is my 2nd cousin 15 times removed Judy Rice

The traditional story is that the Princes in the Tower were killed by their uncle Richard III, but some people believe they might have lived into the reign of Henry VII, who perhaps killed them before he married their sister.

Some people think the princes died of natural causes, but if so, why didn't Richard produce their bodies?

When the rumors started that the Princes were dead, it would have been to Richard's benefit to produce them alive, or if they were already dead it would have been to his benefit to show they died of natural causes. The only plausible reason for Richard not producing the bodies would be that their bodies had signs of violence, or that they had been dead long enough to make it suspicious.

After Henry VII got the throne, it would have been to his benefit to produce their bodies, but he never did. The most logical reason is that he couldn't find them. It might make sense that he ordered their death so there wasn't enough decay to make it plausible that Richard killed them. But if so, why didn't he "find" them during the Perkin Warbeck rebellion?

There is also an argument that Henry would not have married their sister, the Yorkist heiress, unless he was really sure that they were dead and she really was the Yorkist heiress.

I'm partial to the theory that the princes were murdered on orders from Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham. It's just a theory, but it would explain why neither Richard nor Henry could produce the bodies.

yes all intresting.. just gonna leave it as is for right now.. don't know if you knew this but i am now a uncle Justin Durand and so i don't have as much time for things as i used to.. too busy playing uncle mikey to my brothers kiddo..

Ahhh, you're going to love that, Michael. My nephews and nieces range in age from 42 to 8. Many are parents themselves now, and one just became a grandmother. I've loved being the "favorite uncle" and indulging them all.

watching the White Queen and discovering all this online and here has been so fascinating to me...! I always heard/read he was sick as well..

The children under the stairs in the tower were approximately the right ages as the princes as well. Why , other than for criminal reasons, would someone bury two boys bodies in the Tower, in the place they had been incarcerated? As for other remains with them, they certainly weren't buried with any dignity. Their bodies may have been disinterred from another location, reinterred later. I agree with Justin, the circumstantial evidence weighs pretty heavily against Richard. Remember, he was charged with being the young Princes guardian. How would he not have known what happened to them, their every move?

I'll be brief: Richard the III was on his first tour of the Realms and was in fact far from the Tower when the Children were killed....The White Queen was very inshightful to have used the actual letters and words from Elizabeth Woodville about keeping two Jewels in the same box....I Vote for MARGARET BEAUFORT & The Duke of Buckingham as the cause of the PRINCE's demise....Richard was the Plantagenet Heir left standing without question of Paternity....Hurray for GREAT HIstory on Television....I was moved many times by the spells woven for us in such splendor. DCR

Pamela, the same set of facts can be used to argue that the man responsible was Henry Stafford. If the princes were murdered and unceremoniously buried, then Richard would have been hard pressed to produce the bodies even if he knew where they were.

If the bodies had signs of violent death, and even worse, if they might have been further mangled from a hasty burial, Richard could not have produced the bodies with any plausible claim that he had nothing to do with it.

So, in the end, Richard might have been innocent but still unable under the circumstances to exonerate himself.

There are many interesting articles in old issues of The Riccardian, about the various suspects, as well as articles both critical and supportive of the forensic investigations of the bodies under the stairs.

I don't think Richard had anything to do with it, other than possibly being forced into the position of an accomplice after the fact (having to keep quiet about what he knew about it).

My preferred suspect is Stafford of Buckingham, whose claim to the throne was about as good as Henry Tudor's - possibly a shade better, since there was less "taint" of illegitimacy about it. He may have been hoping to provoke Richard and Henry into mutual annihilation and pick up the pieces afterward. If that was his plan, it backfired big time and he wound up executed for treason.

There's also the tantalizing possibility that neither Richard nor Henry could produce the bodies because there were no bodies to produce - the Princes weren't *in* the Tower any longer.

Their greatest safety would have lain with Richard's sister Margaret, in Burgundy, if they could have been transported there safely. And Margaret was up to her ears in the "Perkin Warbeck" affair, but safely out of Henry Tudor's reach. (No one has ever decided whether "Perkin Warbeck" was for real - but if he wasn't, he was extensively and intensively coached by someone very familiar with the English court of Edward IV, and who would know that better than Margaret?)

I agree with your assertion Maven: Margaret gave her affirmation to WARBECK and the reason for the confession by Warbeck was most likely torture....yes? Anyway....The book I am using is called Richard III a study in servcie by Rosemary Harrox....and she quotes a "Huge row with Henry Stafford, upon Richards return from his first tour of the KINGDOM"....These were his nephews and the blood of his brother which the victorious Tudor historians have turned into a blood-lust for their own times....The trail always leads to those who PROFIT from such a demise and don't forget the Curse of Elizabeth Woodville.....Arthur Tudor never made it to the throne or his wedding bed it seems....DCR

Showing all 19 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion