The Tower being a royal residence, not a prison. The Great Chronicle of London records "the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower at sundry times". Prisoners aren't typically allowed to wander about carrying weapons. Rumors that the Princes were dead started after Easter of 1484. According to Holinshed, Richard denied the rumors.
Common Historical Misconceptions
- Thread starter Rex Romanum
- Start date
The Tower being a royal residence, not a prison. The Great Chronicle of London records "the children of King Edward were seen shooting and playing in the garden of the Tower at sundry times". Prisoners aren't typically allowed to wander about carrying weapons. Rumors that the Princes were dead started after Easter of 1484. According to Holinshed, Richard denied the rumors.
It's not incompatible, after all John II of France was imprisoned in the Savoy Palace with a great liberty.
It's not unusual for high-ranking prisoners, again.
The Tower was also a place for royal prisoners, such as Welsh princes including Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, who died during a failed escape attempt from this royal residence.
That sounds a bit weird. As far back as October 1483, the rebel leaders in SE England declared for Henry Tudor, despite many being former mebers oof Edward IV's household. Why should they declare for a Lancastrian - an old enemy - if they believed the sons of their late king to be still alive?
Similarly,at Chrisrmas 1483 Henry Tudor made his public commitment to marry Elizabeth of York, a gesture totally meaningless if her brothers were generally thought to be still alive. Also, of course, Richard could have easily taken the wind out of Henry's sails by producing the Princes. Clearly, Henry was confident that Richard would be unable to do so.
Whether it had reached the common folk or not, it seems clear enough that top people were already "writing off" the Princes well before 1484.
I see no way in which producing the princes would have taken any wind out of Henry's sails. The people serving under him knew of his piss poor claim already, and putting two more spaces between his position and the legal right to inherit the throne will not matter one bit to the rebels. Richard was losing support for other reasons than the princes disappearance from the public eye, and their reappearance in his custody would change very few significant opinions about him.
People were writing off the princes because they were held in captivity by a usurper and had no support base to speak of. That changed when Richard died and the princes more or less inherited the Yorkist support base from him, as evidenced by Warbeck's ability to raise forces by evoking the princes' memory, something that woud not have worked when Richard still lived.
Henry likely married Elizabeth because she was Yorkist and had a powerful family, and not for her claim strength. Even without salic law Elizabeth over Richard is a hard sell in those days, and at that point she was still considered illegitimate, and Henry made no great rush to fix that.
But it would have split the opposition. The point about the Princes' disappearence was that it made their sister the residual heir of York, and cleared the way for a united opposition to Richard, through a marriage alliance between his Lancastrian and Yorkist opponents.
Why not? Those opposed to Richard rallied to Henry because he was the most "available" candidate, appealing to surviving Lancastrians and (by agreeing to marry EoY) Yorkists as well. Had anything happened to him, Richard's opponents would have needed another candidate, and a son of Edward IV (real or pretended) would have served, esp if married or betrothed to someone with Lancastrian blood.
Incidentally, EoY was also being "held captive by the usurper", but that didn't stop her having enough support to make it worth Henry's while to offer to marry her.
Not sure what you mean. EoY's family was powerful because it was a royal family, with a claim to the throne. That was the only thing which made her worth marrying. Certainly the other (Woodville) side of her family would bring no advantage. As to the illegitimacy, was there any particular urgency about repealing it, given that everyone knew Henry was going to? It was just one more loose end to tidy up, which Henry eventually did.
I'm going to need some convincing before I believe the bolded portion of the above, and until that happens the rest is moot. Besides, the removal of the princes included making all of their siblings illegitimate, so Richard was the Yorkist candidate in every way shape and form once the princes were in his custody.
Because while Richard lived the majority of the traditional Yorkist faction followed him, omitting those like the woodvilles whom he had screwed over to obtain the throne. I don't think that Richard was ever unpoplar enough that the majority of the Yorkist faction would abandon him for a pretender with no proof of his authenticity, so the candidate would need to appeal to the Lancastrian faction to work most likely. Henry dd just this, and while his marriage to Elizabeth was a serious attempt to make himself into a candidate for both factions, it is telling that the most serious uprizings against him were in favor of Yorkist claimants, meaning that the nobility always considered Henry Lancastrian.
Henry wanted her because she had power and, at least in theory, a claim that could be transferred to him and their children. For that to work with the princes, you need the man leading the uprising to have a bad claim, and to have an unmarried daughter and no sons, and no reasonable hope of having a son later. By contrast, Elizabeth just needs a man with a poor claim who is either unmarried or willing to leave his wife for her for her claim to be useful. Henry doesn't wan't the princes, and neither does any other would be king in the late 15th century, because they no power of their own at the time, but they have the legal right to command you.
No, I mean that the Woodvilles brought a great deal of advantage, thanks to Edward IV trying to build them into the perfect counter to his opponents in parliament. Without that, Henry wouldn't have cared for her claim, because by that point things had degenerated so far that the primary deciding factor was sheer military force. That she was the daughter of a king was a useful aside, not the primary attraction. Henry wanted her family's men and money more than any claim, and as a powerful family with a matriarch (Queen Elizabeth Woodville) who lacked sons and had an available daughter the Woodvilles would have seemed like a good option for support.
Who specifically counts as "the traditional Yorkist faction"? Iirc, Sir William Stanley had been consistently Yorkist since 1459, but he certainly wasn't oin Richard's side. And the initiators of "Buckingham's" rebellion (in reality Buckingham only joined it afer it had started) included former members of Edward IV's household.
Obviously Henry doesn't want them - but he does want theirformer spporters. He can get those by promising to marry their sister - but only of course if they are generally written off as either dead or at least doomed. So long as they are still alive, or believed to be, she has no following of her own, hence there would be no point promising to marry herr.
Could I have a source for this? I've never read any historical work on the period which ever suggested that EoY's Woodville (rather than her royal) connections were what made her valuable to Henry.
Of course, that may just reflect the fact that the WotR had left a distinct shortage of credible Lancastrians - which of course was what had given Henry Tudor his chance.
In the event, though, the most serious revolt against Henry VII (and against his son) was not dynastic at all. It started in Cornwall, which had been Lancastrian during the wars, and was directed against Henry's policies (on taxation) rather than his family. The rebels might have supported Warbeck, or he them, had he ever shown up, but in the event it ran its entire course without benefit of any Pretender.
The converse situation prevailed in Kent. Though generally Yorkist during the wars, it never gave Henry (father or son) the slightest bother. It had been the jumping off point for Richard of York's return in 1460, but when Warbeck appeared in 1495, showed so little interest that he never even dared to land, and those of his supporters imprudent enough to do so were seized by local militia even before the king's troops could arrive.
Ditto in the next reign. The only serious rising against Henry VIII again related to policy (this time religious) not to family. Even when it was at the height of its apparent success, no Yorkist claimant ever raised his head, nor did the Pilgrims show any interest in one.
In short, support for or opposition to the Tudors seems to have had little to do with former dynastic preference. If any pattern can be discerned, it would seem to be geographical, with Cornwall and the North disaffected, the south and east loyal. Wales, of course, was an exception that proved the rule, outlying but loyal, presumably because the Welsh saw Henry Tudor as one of their own.
Post-1900, but just as common.
Polish Hussars charging Panzers
The common thought: Polish Hussars charged Panzers on horseback, no wonder they lost so fast.
The Truth: Though Polish Hussars did fight against Nazi Germany, they rarely did combat horseback, and never full-out charged at them.
Source of the Misconception: Nazi Propaganda.
Polish Hussars charging Panzers
The common thought: Polish Hussars charged Panzers on horseback, no wonder they lost so fast.
The Truth: Though Polish Hussars did fight against Nazi Germany, they rarely did combat horseback, and never full-out charged at them.
Source of the Misconception: Nazi Propaganda.
Awwww.
Somehow the idea of the Poles being brave enough and badass enough to take on panzers on horseback is a myth I wish wasn't from propaganda on being "dumb enough".
Awwww.
Somehow the idea of the Poles being brave enough and badass enough to take on panzers on horseback is a myth I wish wasn't from propaganda on being "dumb enough".
I actually find the story of actual Polish mounted units more inspiring, they where actually highly mobile light anti-tank units who where for the most part capable of running circles around German armor.
IIRC what happened was that a Polish unit of cavalry was surrounded by a German Panzer unit so they mounted their horses to break out. This was reported by a Italian reporter as a attack with the aim to destroy the german tanks.
The story I've heard is along the lines of "Polish cavalry unit charges German
infantry unit. German infantry runs away. Polish cavalry pursues and run into
a German tank unit or possibly armoured cars. War correspondent sees and
reports only the second part."
Japhy
Banned
I've read the Poles knew of course about the dangers of Cavalry facing Armor, but had developed tactics, in which Cavalry detachments used their horses to ride up near the tanks from behind and lay explosive charges on them, similar to what the Finns did on Skis to the Russians, and that the Italian reporter simply had been shown a failed ride of what was otherwise as successful tactic.
Actually, this came from two different battles, each reported by two different italian reporters (one more or less anti-facist, the other facist).
Each side used this legend : Germans for demonstrating that Slavs were primitive and stupid, Anti-Nazis to show the bravery of Polish soldiers...
Wolfpaw
Banned
Syphilis was a "New World Disease."
Syphilis was present in Eurasia in the pre-Columbian period, and was commonly misdiagnosed as leprosy. Archeologists in Central Asia have discovered many a Mongol corpse ravaged by syphilis and other venereal diseases that predate Columbus. That being said, Columbus' men likely introduced a new strain of the disease into Europe which they had acquired in the New World.
Syphilis was present in Eurasia in the pre-Columbian period, and was commonly misdiagnosed as leprosy. Archeologists in Central Asia have discovered many a Mongol corpse ravaged by syphilis and other venereal diseases that predate Columbus. That being said, Columbus' men likely introduced a new strain of the disease into Europe which they had acquired in the New World.