Two contemporary writers, they say, mention the fact only as a report a third certainly states it, incorrectly, at least, in point of time and Sir Thomas More, who is the only one remaining, relates it with certain details which it does seem difficult to accept as credible. Nevertheless, there have been writers in modern days who have shown plausible grounds for doubting that the murder really took place.
After many years, indeed, an impostor counterfeited the younger but even he, to give credit to his pretensions, expressly admitted the murder of his elder brother. But time passed away and they never appeared again. They believed that the princes must have been sent abroad to defeat the intrigues of their friends. To many the tale seemed too cruel to be true. Among all the inhumanities of the late civil war there had been nothing so unnatural as this. Regarding the time and manner of the deed no news could then be obtained, but the news that the deposed King and his brother had been assassinated was spread with horror and amazement through the land. Of course they had been removed by violence. The rumor of the projected movement in behalf of the princes was speedily followed by the report that they were no more. "Written at London the 10th day of October. Therefore I pray you, that with all diligence you make you ready and come hither, and bring with you six tall fellows in harness and ye shall not lose your labor, that knoweth God who have you in his keeping. It is so that the Kentish men be up in the Weald and say that they will come and rob the city, which I shall let if I may. "Right well-beloved friend, I commend me to you. "To my right well-beloved friend, John Paston, be this delivered in haste." By the beginning of October some disturbances had actually taken place, and the following letter was written in consequence by the Duke of Norfolk to one of his dependents in Norfolk: In Kent, Sussex, and Essex, in Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Dorset, even as far west as Devonshire, cabals were formed for their liberation, which all appear to have been parts of one great conspiracy organized in secret by the Duke of Buckingham. A movement in their behalf was gotten up in the South of England while Richard was away. They were virtually prisoners, and their confinement created great dissatisfaction. In Gairdner’s discussion we have the results of the best historical inquiries concerning this most important question of Richard’s career.Ī great amount of public anxiety prevailed touching the two young princes in the Tower. On June 26, 1483, Richard assumed the crown, and soon after the death of the princes was publicly announced. He then caused his parliament to set the two princes aside as illegitimate, and they were imprisoned in the Tower of London. He served in the Wars of the Roses, and on the death of Edward IV, April, 1483, he seized the young Edward V and caused himself to be proclaimed protector.
These princes at the supposed time of their death were about thirteen and nine years of age respectively.īefore his usurpation Richard III, last of the Plantagenet line, was known as the Duke of Gloucester. The brief reign of Richard III, 1483-1485, left for historians one subject of dispute which even to our own day has not been finally determined-his alleged murder of his nephews, King Edward V and Richard, Duke of York, sons of Edward IV.
0 kommentar(er)
