Richard III: His Life & Character, Reviewed in the Light of Recent ResearchMarkham, Clements R. (Clements Robert), Sir
History
Richard III: His Life & Character, Reviewed in the Light of Recent Research
Markham, Clements R. (Clements Robert), Sir
Great Britain -- Kings and rulers -- Biography; Richard III, King of England, 1452-1485
opportunity for reviling the King of England; and with Morton in France
there would be no dearth of such wares.
The insult to the King of England uttered by the French Chancellor may
not have reached Richard's government. If it did, it must have been
apologised for or explained away, for some months afterwards, in
September 1484, King Richard granted a safe-conduct for an embassy from
the French Regency to treat of peace.[12] The calumny was clearly
received by the French Chancellor from Morton, or some other
unscrupulous outlaw, and not from any general rumour. For it is stated
as a fact; the truth being that it was never known what became of the
two boys, or pretended to be known until after the alleged confession
of Tyrrel in 1502.
Fabyan, writing in the time of Henry VII., talks of a rumour, and of
its having been the common fame that King Richard put his nephews to
secret death. This was merely what Henry VII. wanted to be the 'common
fame'; and no one dared to gainsay it. In the year after his accession
the usurping Tudor ordered it to be given out that the boys were
murdered by their uncle, and his paid agents had to repeat the
statement. André said they were killed with a sword.[13] {244} Rous
stated that they were put to death by some means unknown.[14] Polydore
followed Rous. Comines, naturally enough, told the story officially
promulgated in England. But Henry never dared to make the accusation
publicly in his first so-called Parliament, and there can have been
only one reason for this silence. The boys were then alive.
Henry's chroniclers, however, testify that nothing was known, and thus
prove the falsehood of the French Chancellor's statement, while
furnishing additional proof that no general rumour existed during
Richard's reign that the boys were dead.
It is not to be supposed that Sir William Stanley would have
entertained for a moment the belief that Perkin Warbeck was a son of
Edward IV. unless he knew that the princes were alive throughout
Richard's reign. No one had better means of knowing. The story put
forward by Henry VII. tells us that it remained in doubt whether the
boys were destroyed or not in Richard's day. Polydore Virgil mentions
a rumour that they had escaped abroad. Perkin Warbeck's story was
believed by a great number of people, which could not have been the
case if the rumour of the death of the princes had been generally
credited.
[Sidenote: Baseless rumours]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account