Edward V (child) with his parents.
Reproduction from the site http://monarchy.nm.ru/
Edward V
Edward V of England
Edward V of England
Years of life: November 4, 1470 - 1483 (?)
Reign: April 9 - June 25, 1483
Father: Edward IV
Mother: Elizabeth Woodville
Not married
Edward was 12 years old when his father Edward IV died. His uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was appointed regent for the young king. On May 4, 1483, Edward triumphantly entered London. However, by that time Richard, who also had plans for the throne, had already begun to weave intrigues. On June 25, Parliament declared the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville illegal on the grounds that Edward had previously allegedly been secretly married to Eleanor Talbot. Accordingly, the children of this marriage, Edward and Richard, were declared illegitimate and ineligible for the crown. The descendants of the executed Duke of Clarence were not considered as competitors since he was declared state criminal. Thus, Richard Gloucester was recognized as the only legitimate contender.
After the deposition, Edward and his brother Richard were taken to the Tower, and their further fate is unknown. Apparently they were killed on Richard's orders.
In 1674, during reconstruction in the Tower, two children's skeletons were discovered. It has been suggested that they belonged to princes. The remains were buried in Westminster Abbey. However, studies carried out already in the 20th century could not accurately establish either age or gender remains.
Material used from the site http://monarchy.nm.ru/
EDWARD V (1470–1483?), child king of England, best known for the mysterious circumstances surrounding his disappearance from the Tower of London. Edward, the eldest son of King Edward IV of England and his wife Elizabeth (Woodville), was born on November 2, 1470, in Westminster Abbey, while his father was in exile in Holland and the country was ruled by Warwick (“the kingmaker”) and the Lancastrians. In June 1471, Edward IV made his son Prince of Wales. Edward spent his entire childhood at Lodlo Castle in Wales, where he was looked after by his maternal uncle, Earl Anthony Rivers. When Edward IV died on April 9, 1483, the Queen Mother, who was in London, and her Woodville relatives took steps to prevent Richard of Gloucester, his paternal uncle, from becoming Protector. Meanwhile, twelve-year-old Edward V, accompanied by Earl Rivers and a retinue of Woodville supporters, set off for the capital.
The Dukes of Gloucester and Buckingham, having learned of the Woodvilles' intentions, intercepted them at Stony Stratford. The boy king was transported to London, and the Earl of Rivers, Thomas Vaughan and Lord Gray were sent in custody to Pontefract in Yorkshire and then executed. After Richard Gloucester, who became protector, also sent him to the royal chambers in the Tower younger brother Edward V Richard, Duke of York, Edward IV's marriage was declared illegal, and Edward and Richard were declared illegitimate.
The princes were not seen again, and on June 26, Richard of Gloucester was proclaimed king as Richard III, and on July 6, he was crowned in Westminster Abbey. According to Thomas More's version, which later became widely accepted, shortly after Richard's accession, Edward V and Richard of York were strangled in the Tower. Richard's apologists put forward their hypothesis, according to which Edward and his brother were alive throughout the reign Richard III, and Henry VII killed them. It is quite possible, however, that he killed the brothers Duke of Buckingham, then constable of the Tower, in order to discredit the king, against whom he soon rebelled.
Materials from the encyclopedia "The World Around Us" were used.
Read further:
(chronological table).
(biographical reference book).
Residents for almost 30 years British Isles suffered from endless and cruel enmity between the York dynasties, one of the emblems of which was White Rose, and Lancaster, whose symbol was the scarlet rose. Later, this struggle for the English crown was called the War of the Scarlet and White Roses...
Edward V (4 November 1470-1483?) - King of England from 9 April to 25 June 1483, son of Edward IV
On April 9, 1483, King Edward IV of England died suddenly, just shy of 41 years old. His eldest son and heir to the throne was only twelve years old at the time, and in his will King Edward appointed his younger brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as regent.
Edward IV, who was a representative of the York dynasty and declared his three predecessors on the English throne, the Lancastrian kings, despots, was well aware that there would certainly be those who would challenge the right to the throne of his young heir, Edward, Prince of Wales.
Richard, who had proven himself a loyal and resourceful soldier in the service of his brother and the king, swore an oath of allegiance to the Prince of Wales, but after the death of King Edward V he began to take control of the kingdom into his own hands.
On April 29, 1483, Richard intercepted a group of courtiers who were taking young Edward to London, arrested their leader, the boy's maternal uncle, and himself accompanied his nephew the rest of the way to the capital.
The coronation of young Edward V, originally scheduled for May 4, was postponed to June 22, and the future monarch was placed in the royal chambers in the Tower...
Edward IV (28 April 1442 - 9 April 1483) - king of England in 1461-1470 and 1471-1483, representative of the York Plantagenet line, seized the throne during the Wars of the Roses
Edward IV's widow Elizabeth, suspecting Richard of treachery, hid with youngest son and daughters in Westminster Abbey, but in June the regent managed to convince Elizabeth to give him her son, 9-year-old Richard, Duke of York, citing the fact that the young king was very lonely in the Tower.
On the day of the coronation, the right of Edward V to take the throne was called into question: Shay, a theologian from Cambridge, preached a sermon at St. Paul's Cathedral in London, in which he declared the illegitimacy of the succession to the throne, arguing that Edward IV had married Elizabeth Woodville, being betrothed to the other, and therefore, their union was invalid according to the law of that time and their children - including the young king - were illegitimate...
Richard, Duke of Gloucester at first pretended that he did not want to be king, but on June 26 he accepted the crown and was proclaimed King Richard III.
During July, the uncrowned Edward V, who was now contemptuously called Edward the Bastard, and his mash were occasionally seen playing in the Tower courtyard, but then, according to one contemporary, the boys were transferred to the most remote rooms of the palace-fortress and they appeared less and less often in the windows covered with bars, “until they finally stopped appearing completely”...
Richard III - King of England since 1483, from the York dynasty, the last representative male line Plantagenets on the English throne. Brother of Edward IV
By the autumn of 1483 there were rumors that both princes had been killed in the Tower - but by whom?
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Woodville entered into an alliance with the enemies of King Richard III, offering her eldest daughter as a wife to the Lancastrian pretender to the throne, Henry Tudor.
In August 1485, Richard III met Henry Tudor at the Battle of Bosworth Field, where at a critical moment in the battle one of the king's supporters betrayed him and Richard was killed.
The traitor removed the crown from the deceased King Richard III and placed it on his head Henry VII...
The War of the Roses ended and the Tudor dynasty ascended the throne in England, under which the country experienced a period of unprecedented prosperity.
Edward with his brother the Duke of York in the Tower. Painting by Paul Delaroche, 19th century.
But if Richard III was not allowed to live in peace by rumors that accused him of murdering young princes, then Henry VII was tormented by rumors that they were alive, and therefore could lay claim to the throne. Finally, he came up with a version according to which the boys, on the orders of Richard III, were strangled with pillows and buried under stone slabs at the foot of one of the Tower stairs.
Sir James Tyrell was made a scapegoat, tried and executed in May 1502 for "unspecified treason." Only later was it announced that Tyrell had confessed to killing the princes before his head was cut off.
All this was accepted as true and entered into the works of historians, like Thomas More's biography of Richard III, published in 1534 and later used by Shakespeare in creating the drama Richard III...
Shakespeare showed Richard as an evil despot who, without hesitation, hires an assassin to kill “two mortal enemies; I have no peace from them, no sleep for me... two illegitimate children in the Tower.”
Having completed this dirty deed, Richard calmly decides to seek the favor of the eldest sister of the murdered princes, who had already been promised as a wife to his rival, Henry Tudor.
Henry VII - King of England and Sovereign of Ireland, first monarch of the Tudor dynasty
The inconspicuous deformity - apparently, one of Richard's shoulders was slightly higher than the other - was increased by the playwright, and Shakespeare's Richard became a hunchback cursing fate.
In the happy ending of the play, after the victory on Bosworth Field, Henry Tudor proclaims: “The bloody dog is dead... and the feud is over”...
In 1674, almost 200 years after the alleged murder, in the process of carrying out construction work A wooden box containing two children's skeletons was discovered in the Tower. It was decided that these were the remains of the murdered princes, and they were reburied in Westminster Abbey.
In 1933 skeletal remains handed over for research, which resulted in the conclusion of experts that these were the skeletons of two boys of the same age that Edward V and his brother were at the time of their disappearance. The cause of death itself was not determined, but noticeable damage was found on the older boy’s jaw.
Elizabeth of York (11 February 1466 – 11 February 1503) was the eldest daughter of King Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville. Wife of Henry VII
Among the people who last saw the princes in Tower of London, there was also a court doctor summoned to Edward V when he had a toothache. The young king, the doctor said, prayed a lot and repented daily, as he was sure that he was facing a quick death. “Oh, if only my uncle would leave me alive,” he said, “even if I lose the kingdom”...
Found an error in the text? Highlight the misspelled word and press Ctrl + Enter.
English king from April to June 1483, from the York dynasty. The circumstances of the death of Edward V and his brother Richard are not fully known. Presumably they were killed no earlier than September 1483 in the Tower.
The second half of the 15th century is one of the most troubled and sad periods in English history. At this time, a bloody war broke out in England. internecine war, known as the War of the Roses. Two side branches of the Plantagenet dynasty fought for the throne - the Lancasters, whose coat of arms was a scarlet rose, and the Yorks, whose symbol was a white rose.
Historians consider the beginning of the War of the Scarlet and White Roses to be 1455, but we will begin our story from the distant year 1422. This year, Henry VI, the son of the English King Henry V and Princess Catherine of Valois of France, became King of England and France. The ruler of the two most powerful powers of that time was... nine months old. Naturally, regents were supposed to govern the states until the king came of age. By the will of the dying Henry V, his brother John Bedford was appointed head of France, and Humphrey Gloucester was appointed head of England.
Perhaps the reign of Henry VI would have been one of the calmest and most prosperous in the history of England, since the king was a very peace-loving person, but... In 1453, Henry VI suffered a fit of madness, during which he was absolutely unable to govern the state. And although after a year for some time mental condition The king's condition improved, and soon the seizures began to recur.
In 1454, Duke Richard of York was appointed regent for the king. The Lancastrian party, led by the strong-willed and decisive wife of Henry VI, Margaret of Anjou, began a war to remove Richard of York from power. The first battle of the Wars of the Roses was the Battle of St Albans in May 1455, which was won by the Yorkists. This victory allowed Richard of York to regain the position of Lord Protector, from which he had been removed in December 1454. However, soon Margaret of Anjou again manages to take the reins of power into her own hands, subjugating parliament and the government.
Until 1459, there was relative calm in the “War of the Roses”. Both sides are preparing for decisive battles.
In June 1460, troops led by the Earl of Warwick (who moved from the York camp to the Lancastrian camp and back several times during the war, the Earl of Warwick went down in history under the nickname “kingmaker”) and the youngest son of Richard of York, Earl of March, the future King Edward IV, captured London. Henry VI tries to hide in Northampton, but in July 1460 the Yorkists manage to catch up with him and defeat him royal army and capture Henry VI.
In the autumn of 1460, Richard of York addresses parliament and declares his desire to take the throne instead of Henry VI. However complete victory The Yorkists failed to achieve this. Parliament appointed Richard of York as protector until the end of Henry VI's life, but Richard of York could take the throne only after the death of the king. Similar solution didn't suit any of them warring parties. The fight continued with renewed vigor.
At the end of 1460, Richard of York decided to finally defeat the Lancastrian troops and headed to the north of the country at the head of his army. He was completely confident in the success of his campaign, but on December 30, 1460, at the Battle of Wakefield, the Lancastrian army managed to inflict a serious defeat on the White Rose supporters. In this battle, Richard of York was killed. In those cruel times, it was not customary to respect the death of an enemy - by order of Queen Margaret, the head of Richard of York in a paper crown was displayed on the fortress wall of York. England was finally divided into two absolutely irreconcilable parties.
The death of the head of the Yorkists did not mean final victory Lancastrians. The York dynasty was led by Duke Richard's eldest son, Prince Edward. In his father's Welsh possessions, he manages to gather very impressive forces. On February 3, 1461, the two armies met at Mortimer's Cross, four kilometers from Wigmore, the York family castle. Having defeated the Lancastrian army, Edward of York headed towards London.
But Margarita of Anjou did not waste any time. Two weeks after the Battle of Mortimer's Cross, on February 17, 1461, at St. Albans, her troops utterly defeated the army of the Earl of Warwick. Henry VI was released from captivity, in which he spent six months. Having gathered all their strength, the Lancastrian army also moved towards the capital.
The race began, the main prize in which was the crown of England. The first was Edward - his troops, with the support of the townspeople, occupied London on February 26. Appeared in England on March 4 new king– Edward IV. However, the young king did not have time for celebration - the Lancastrian army was already standing near London. Edward IV managed to defend London and push the enemy back to the town of Towton, where the decisive battle of the first half of the “War of the Roses” took place.
The exact number of participants in the Battle of Towton is unknown. Some sources call the figure 20 thousand on each side, while others believe that 120–130 thousand people took part in the battle.
The opposing troops met on a plain 10 miles from York. The troops of Edward IV, pursuing the Lancastrians, crossed the Aire River with minor losses. In the early morning of March 29, 1461, the two armies faced each other. Suddenly the weather turned bad: the sky became cloudy and a strong snowstorm began. And here luck was on the side of the Yorkers. Strong wind, blowing towards the Lancastrians, greatly facilitated the task of the York archers. Taking advantage of the snow curtain, they got close to the Lancastrian positions. Favourable wind helped the Yorkists hit targets almost without missing a beat, while the wind and snow that hit the Lancastrian archers in the face made their actions completely ineffective.
However, by noon, on the left flank of the attack, the Lancastrians began to push back the troops of Edward IV. And yet, the reserve thrown into battle by Edward IV in time decided the outcome of the battle in his favor. The tired Lancastrians began to retreat randomly. The battle turned into a massacre - the enraged Yorkists took no prisoners that day. Both sides paid a heavy price for the ambitions of their leaders. According to various estimates, from 20 to 30 thousand people died in the Battle of Towton.
After this defeat, Henry VI fled to Scotland. For the first time during the “War of the Roses,” a period came when power in the country completely passed into the hands of one of the warring parties. This situation persisted for eight years. Minor attempts by the Lancastrians to rebel were easily suppressed by Edward IV.
But in 1469, the Earl of Warwick, the “kingmaker”, showed himself in the “best” qualities and declared war on Edward IV. What was the powerful count dissatisfied with? Firstly, by ignoring his opinion on issues of foreign and domestic policy, and secondly, the king’s secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, a noblewoman from a seedy family.
26 July 1469 Warwick defeats royal army at the Battle of Edgecote. Seeing the futility of resistance, on October 2, 1470, Edward IV fled to Holland. On October 6, Warwick enters London and frees Henry VI, who has been imprisoned in the Tower since 1465.
The next Lancastrian reign lasted only five months. On March 2, 1471, the army of Edward IV landed in the Yorkshire area. On April 14, at Barnet, Edward IV defeated Warwick (Warwick died in this battle), and on May 4, at Tewkesbury, he defeated the army of Margaret of Anjou, which landed in England with the support of French king Louis XI. In April 1471, Henry VI was again deposed and died (most likely assassinated) in the Tower on May 21, 1471.
Edward IV finally dealt with the Lancastrian dynasty. Now the only thing dangerous people During this period, his brothers remained for the king - George, Duke of Clarence, and Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Discord between the brothers led to the fact that in 1477, the Duke of Clarence was arrested on charges of... necromancy and the desire to bring damage to the king. On this absurd charge, in 1478, the Duke was convicted by Parliament and died under unclear circumstances (according to the popular version, he was drowned in a barrel of malvasia).
However, another brother of Edward IV, Richard of York, Duke of Gloucester, managed to survive this struggle and by the early eighties of the 15th century became second in power and influence on political processes person in England.
On April 9, 1483, Edward IV died. The throne was to be taken by his son, twelve-year-old Edward V, and Richard of York was appointed regent by the will of the deceased king. Those close to the late king, led by Queen Mother Elizabeth Woodville, tried to resist this. A struggle ensued again, the outcome of which was decided at the Battle of Stony Stratford, where Richard of York, in alliance with the Duke of Buckingham, defeated their opponents. In this battle, Richard of York managed to capture King Edward V. Soon, Edward V's brother, Prince Richard, also fell into the hands of Richard of York.
Richard of York's ambitions extended beyond the post of regent under King Edward V; he wanted to become the sole ruler of England. In order to give an appearance of legitimacy to his actions, the regent makes a speech before parliament in which he claims that the secret marriage of the late Edward IV with Elizabeth Woodville was concluded through witchcraft and should be declared invalid from the point of view of succession to the throne. But since the king’s marriage is illegal, then the children from this marriage cannot lay claim to the English throne, therefore, he, Richard of York, must be recognized as king. On June 26, Parliament confirmed the legality of Richard's powers, and on July 6, 1483, the coronation ceremony of the new king, Richard III, took place.
Let us leave aside for now the question of what actually happened to the children of Edward IV. In the autumn, news began to spread throughout England that King Edward V and his younger brother Richard had been killed in the Tower on the orders of Richard III. After this news, conspiracies began to arise one after another.
The first to unexpectedly rebel was the Duke of Buckingham, who had previously been a zealous supporter of Richard of York. The Duke's army quickly marched towards Gloucester, where Buckingham intended to cross the Severn River. But just at this time the river flooded a vast area on both banks. Having found neither provisions nor convenient place to spend the night, Buckingham's soldiers began to go home. Buckingham was forced to hide with a certain Banister, his confidant, but he soon betrayed the Duke to the local sheriff. The Duke was transported to Salisbury, where, after a quick trial, he was beheaded on November 12.
Richard III tried to strengthen his power, but through confiscations and executions he alienated the entire English nobility. The survivors of the thirty years of the War of the Roses, the Lancastrians and Yorks, united around Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, a descendant of a side branch of the Lancastrian dynasty.
took place on August 22 last fight in The War of the Roses. The opponents met in Leicestershire, on a field near the small town of Bosworth. Richard III was confident of his victory - his troops outnumbered the enemy army. Seeing this, Richard gives the order to attack the enemy. After a brief exchange of cannonballs and arrows, hand-to-hand combat began.
During the battle, Richard III learns of treason - a large detachment of Lord Stanley, Henry Tudor's stepfather, went over to the enemy's side. From his scouts, the king learns that Henry Tudor is under the protection of a small detachment of bodyguards. Trying to save the situation, Richard III decides to kill his opponent himself. With a spear at the ready, Richard III rushes at the soldiers guarding Henry Tudor.
Absolutely all witnesses and chroniclers of those events, regardless of their sympathies and beliefs, speak about the bravery and courage of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth. Some historians even claim that Richard III personally managed to wound Henry Tudor several times with a spear. And yet, unparalleled courage did not help Richard of York. Lord Stanley's squad arrived in time and quickly destroyed the soldiers surrounding the king. Richard III, who received many wounds, could not resist and was killed. With his death, the Battle of Bosworth ended, and with it the thirty-year bloody “War of the Roses.” On November 30, 1485, a new king, Henry VII, was crowned. In England on long years The Tudor dynasty reigned.
In the history of the War of the Roses there were many strange deaths and disappearances, but the main mystery remains the fate of King Edward V and his brother Prince Richard. What really happened to the young children of King Edward IV?
Let's consider four possible versions events. Version one, “classical”, known to us thanks to Shakespeare’s tragedy “Richard III”, the works of the great humanist and statesman, author of the famous “Utopia” by Thomas More and other historians of the Tudor era. According to this version, King Edward V and his brother Richard were killed on the orders of Richard III no later than September 1483.
Version two, “anti-Tudor”. According to this version, under Richard III the princes were still alive, and they were killed already during the reign of Henry VII Tudor.
Version three. Edward V and Prince Richard were killed on the orders of the Grand Constable of England, the Duke of Buckingham, and Richard III, having learned about the accomplished fact, did not expose his favorite. It is also possible that the Duke of Buckingham organized the murder on the orders of Henry Tudor, who was abroad.
And version four. The children of Edward IV managed to escape from the Tower and flee England abroad, where they hid under false names.
So, let's go back to 1483. The newly-minted usurper king is well aware of the precariousness of his position. All attempts to legitimize Richard III's right to the English throne look more than doubtful, and his opponents are by no means going to swear allegiance to the new king. There are many contenders for the throne, but the most legitimate of them, by the will of the deceased Edward IV, is thirteen-year-old Edward V.
Therefore, immediately after ascending the throne, Richard III decides to kill Edward V and his brother Richard. He offers to commit this crime to the Commandant of the Tower, Robert Brackenbury, but he does not agree to stain his hands with royal blood.
A certain Sir James Tyrrell and his henchmen Dighton, Forrest and Slater undertook to carry out the order of Richard III. Breckenbury handed over the keys to the Tower to the murderers for one night (by the way, in some chronicles Breckenbury is called “brave and worthy person who refused to carry out the terrible order of the tyrant.” Indeed, it is very “noble” to know about an impending crime, to contribute to it, but in decisive moment, remaining “clean”, go to the side).
At night, the assassins, led by Tyrrell, entered the Tower and made their way to the princes' chambers. Tyrrell opened the door for his assistants, but did not enter himself. Dighton, Forrest and Slater quickly entered the room and smothered the sleeping princes with pillows, after which Tyrrell ordered the bodies to be carried under the stairs and covered with a pile of stones.
Tyrrell soon went over to the side of the Lancastrian party and faithfully served Henry VII, holding the post of commandant of the Guinet fortress in France. In 1502 Sir James Tyrrell was arrested and sentenced to death penalty for participating in a conspiracy against the king. In his confession before his execution, James Tyrrell confessed to the murder of King Edward V and his brother Richard.
It was after this confession of Tyrrell that Richard III was finally declared the murderer of the children of Edward IV. Until the 19th century, this version of the murder of Edward V and Prince Richard reigned supreme in all historical research during the Wars of the Roses. Timid attempts to understand this matter more thoroughly were defeated by the authority of Shakespeare, Thomas More and other researchers of that time. However, in the 20th century the pendulum swung to reverse side. A lot of publications appeared in which Henry VII was declared the organizer of the murder of the children of Edward IV, and Richard III was presented as a victim of a slander by historians dependent on the Tudor dynasty. Without taking either side, let us still pay attention to strange facts and inconsistencies in the “classical” version of the murder of Princes Edward and Richard outlined above.
First of all, let us note the strange role of the Commandant of the Tower, Robert Brackenbury, in these events. It would seem that Richard III, a cruel man who stops at nothing and plans to shed the blood of innocent children, should have immediately destroyed such an insignificant figure as the Commandant of the Tower, Robert Brackenbury, for two reasons. Firstly, for refusing to carry out the king’s order, which was clearly interpreted as treason against the king and entailed immediate execution, and secondly, for the fact that Brackenbury learned about such terrible secret, as Richard III's intention to kill the princes. However, nothing of the kind happened. Brackenbury remained until the end under Richard III and died with him at the Battle of Bosworth.
Next point. The whole version is based on the testimony of James Tyrrell. However, can one unconditionally believe the confession of a person sentenced to death? It’s unlikely, especially considering the methods of obtaining the necessary evidence at that time. Another interesting fact is that Tyrrell’s son, also accused of plotting, was pardoned by Henry VII. In addition, John Dighton, the only one of the direct perpetrators of the murder of the princes who had survived by 1502, was also arrested. Dayton's guilt was proven, and he was sentenced... to lifelong exile in the French port of Calais. In those days when almost every day the heads of representatives of the most noble families of England were flying off the chopping block, such a superhumane attitude towards a commoner who allegedly killed royal princes with his own hands looks very strange. Was this a payment for the testimony the authorities needed?
In 1674, during the renovation of the Tower, two child skeletons were discovered under the stairs, which were mistaken for the remains of Princes Edward and Richard and buried in Westminster Abbey. In the 30s of the 20th century, when examining these remains, it was found that they belonged to boys 12–13 and 9–10 years old, which approximately corresponds to the ages of Edward and Richard in 1483. It seemed that here it was – irrefutable proof of Tyrrell’s story! However, Tyrrell himself could not show the grave of the princes, vaguely motivating his ignorance by the instructions of Richard III to rebury the bodies of the princes in another place! Another strange discrepancy of facts.
The behavior of Elizabeth Woodville, the Queen Mother, during the reign of Richard III also looks strange and illogical. At first, Elizabeth completely took the side of the Lancastrians. Even if you don't take into account political reasons, what else could a woman do, whose brothers were executed and whose two children were supposedly killed by Richard III? But in 1484, Elizabeth’s position changed radically. She joins the camp of Richard III's supporters and reneges on her promise to marry her daughter to Henry Tudor. For Henry, this was a serious blow - after all, marrying the princess seriously strengthened his position in the struggle for the throne.
What made Elizabeth change her position so dramatically? Some historians believe that Elizabeth could only do this if she knew for sure that Edward V and his brother were alive and in the hands of Richard III. If the princes were still dead, then perhaps Elizabeth received some indisputable evidence of non-involvement in the murder of Richard III and the guilt of Henry Tudor, who, although not in England at that time, could have planned the murder of her children.
These and other facts make us, if not completely refute the “Tudor” version of the death of Princes Edward and Richard, then at least strongly doubt it. If not Richard III, who then could have organized the murder of King Edward V and his brother? We will be guided by the principle “Who benefits?”, which was used by ancient Roman lawyers. And only two people could benefit from this crime: Henry Tudor and the favorite of Richard III, the Duke of Buckingham.
Historical truth does not always coincide with artistic images, albeit brilliantly created by great writers and poets. Thanks to Shakespeare, for posterity Henry VII remained in the shadow of the terrible image of Richard III. But in terms of treachery, deceit and cruelty, the first Tudor on the English throne was in no way inferior to the last representative of the York dynasty.
Whoever decided to kill the young princes, at that moment this person did not think about what he was doing terrible crime, but weighed the political arguments for and against this act. Did Richard III have any arguments in favor? Of course, there were more than arguments against. But no less than Richard III, the elimination of the princes was also necessary for Henry Tudor, because his chances of legally taking the throne while King Edward V was alive were zero.
Still, there is no direct evidence of Henry VII’s guilt. But they couldn’t have been, because in the event of his involvement in the murder, during the 23 years of his reign, Henry VII had every opportunity to destroy unwanted witnesses to those events. And his court biographers knew their business: Richard III was a bloody usurper and child killer, Henry VII was a noble and most legitimate king who saved England from a tyrant. Of course, other opinions were not allowed.
We have previously mentioned the Duke of Buckingham's conspiracy against the York dynasty. However, the motives for his action are still not entirely clear. “Pro-Tudor” historians explain the Buckingham conspiracy by Richard III’s refusal to give the Duke the promised lands confiscated from the Lancastrians (Shakespeare mentions the County of Hereford). Yes, human greed sometimes knows no bounds, but to take such a risky step in order to add several more estates to your already vast possessions?
The two that look most realistic possible reasons Duke of Buckingham's conspiracy.
Reason one: Buckingham himself decided to take the English throne. At first glance, the assumption is quite fantastic, but it is quite possible, especially considering the growing dissatisfaction with Richard III and the ability of Buckingham to quickly gather significant forces under his banner. In this case, the removal of the rightful king, Edward V, was as necessary for Buckingham as for other claimants to the throne.
Reason two: seeing the precarious position of Richard III, Buckingham decided to go over to the side of the Lancastrian dynasty. One way for Buckingham to prove his loyalty would be to kill Edward V. Note that during the reign of Richard III, only two people in England could carry out a possible order from Henry Tudor, who was abroad: the commandant of the Tower, Robert Breckenbury, and the Duke of Buckingham. However, Brackenbury, as we know, remained a supporter of the York dynasty to the end. This leaves the Duke of Buckingham, who, as Grand Constable of England, had access to all the rooms of the Tower.
The question remains: why in the case independent decision Buckingham to kill the princes, neither Richard III nor Henry VII ever spoke openly about it? There are explanations for this. It was not in the interests of Richard III once again to draw attention to the person of the rightful king of England, Edward V, especially since even with indisputable evidence, disgruntled fellow citizens would not have believed the usurper king. But for Henry VII, Buckingham was not interesting; it was much more profitable for him to present Richard III as a child killer, thereby once again denigrating defeated enemy.
As we can see, the removal of Edward V was necessary for all contenders for the throne, therefore latest version the fate of the children of Edward IV, which claims that Princes Edward and Richard managed to escape alive from the massacre called the “War of the Roses”, seems the least plausible. And although the first impostors, claiming that they were the miraculously saved children of Edward IV, began to appear a few months after the accession of Henry VII, they could not provide any serious evidence of their belonging to the royal family. But if there was such evidence, descendants will never know about it, since the people of Henry VII knew how to reliably keep the secrets of their king’s rise to power.
Edward V (1483)
Edward V, known as one of the "princes in the Tower", was never crowned. He was born in 1470, during the Wars of the Roses: at that time his mother was hiding in Westminster Abbey and his father, Edward IV, was on the run abroad.
King Edward IV died in April 1483. His brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was quick to alienate the young monarch from his mother's family, the Woodvilles. Edward, along with his brother Richard, was placed in the Tower of London, which later became royal residence, and for them a substitute for prison.
The Church, as well as the Lords and Commons, declared Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville illegal - which meant that his sons were now considered illegitimate. The crown was offered to Richard of Gloucester, and in the fall the young princes disappeared. Their fate still remains a mystery.
Richard III (1483-85)
You can count a few English kings, opinions about which would be more controversial than about Richard III. He was born in 1452. at Fortheringay Castle, during the War of the Roses he fought skillfully and bravely. it contained dark side– perhaps the future king was present at the assassination of Henry VI in 1471. - but at the same time he was generous and kind person. His marriage to Anne Neville, daughter of the Earl of Warwick, brought Richard wealth and lands, most of which were in the north of England - where he was known as a fair ruler beloved by the people.
“He was born feet first - as people usually leave this world. In addition (if rumor does not lie), he also had teeth.”
Sir Thomas More, Tudor historian, on the "unnatural birth" of Richard III.
[b] Truly a royal murder?
Both princes were seen playing in the garden of the Tower, they flashed behind the bars of the windows. Perhaps the boys were killed in August 1483. In 1674 bones were found buried in a wooden box (the remains were discovered only in the 1980s) - they were buried in Westminster Abbey by order of Charles II. The main suspect (if it was a murder) must be considered Richard III, although it is believed that Henry Tudor and the Duke of Buckingham also had motives.
The Woodvilles feared Richard, and he hated them. That is why he was in such a hurry to take the fatherless Edward V from the clutches of his maternal relatives. Richard intercepted the boy on the way from Ludlow, where he lived, to London in April 1483. With the help of arrests and executions, he eliminated his opponents and was crowned king on July 6.
Rumors that the princes died in the Tower could not be suppressed, since Richard was unable to produce his nephews. In 1483 he survived Buckingham's rebellion, lost his only son Edward in 1484, and his wife in 1485. In the same year, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, arrived from France and landed in Wales to challenge for the throne.
On the field near Bosworth, where the opponents met, Richard fought bravely and died. The crown, which he wore for such a short time, went to a new dynasty, the Tudors, who came up with the legend of “Richard the Hunchback.”
The Uncrowned King
Edward V, depicted on 15th-century stained glass. The crown above his head (not on it) is a symbol of the fact that he was never crowned.
January 13th, 2014
Edward V (4 November 1470-1483?) - King of England from 9 April to 25 June 1483, son of Edward IV
Does everyone know this popular historical riddle? Or maybe there is a very definite answer to it, and I missed something? But let's start from the beginning...
For almost 30 years, the inhabitants of the British Isles suffered from endless and cruel enmity between the York dynasties, one of whose emblems was a white rose, and the Lancastrian dynasties, whose symbol was a scarlet rose. Later, this struggle for the English crown was called the War of the Scarlet and White Roses...
On April 9, 1483, King Edward IV of England died suddenly, just shy of 41 years old. His eldest son and heir to the throne was only twelve years old at the time, and in his will King Edward appointed his younger brother Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as regent.
Edward IV, who was a representative of the York dynasty and declared his three predecessors on the English throne, the Lancastrian kings, despots, was well aware that there would certainly be those who would challenge the right to the throne of his young heir, Edward, Prince of Wales.
Richard, who had proven himself a loyal and resourceful soldier in the service of his brother and the king, swore an oath of allegiance to the Prince of Wales, but after the death of King Edward V he began to take control of the kingdom into his own hands.
On April 29, 1483, Richard intercepted a group of courtiers who were taking young Edward to London, arrested their leader, the boy's maternal uncle, and himself accompanied his nephew the rest of the way to the capital.
The coronation of young Edward V, originally scheduled for May 4, was postponed to June 22, and the future monarch was placed in the royal chambers in the Tower...
Edward IV (28 April 1442 - 9 April 1483) - king of England in 1461-1470 and 1471-1483, representative of the York Plantagenet line, seized the throne during the Wars of the Roses
Edward IV's widow Elizabeth, suspecting Richard of treachery, hid with her youngest son and daughters in Westminster Abbey, but in June the regent managed to convince Elizabeth to give him her son, 9-year-old Richard, Duke of York, citing the fact that the young king was very lonely in the Tower .
On the day of the coronation, the right of Edward V to take the throne was called into question: Shay, a theologian from Cambridge, preached a sermon at St. Paul's Cathedral in London, in which he declared the illegitimacy of the succession to the throne, arguing that Edward IV had married Elizabeth Woodville, being betrothed to the other, and therefore their union, according to the law of that time, was invalid and their children - including the young king - were illegitimate...
Richard, Duke of Gloucester at first pretended that he did not want to be king, but on June 26 he accepted the crown and was proclaimed King Richard III.
During July, the uncrowned Edward V, who was now scornfully called Edward the Bastard, and his mash were occasionally seen playing in the Tower courtyard, but then, according to one contemporary, the boys were moved to the most remote rooms of the palace-fortress and they appeared less and less often in the windows covered with bars, “until they finally stopped appearing completely”...
Richard III - King of England since 1483, from the York dynasty, the last representative of the Plantagenet male line on the English throne. Brother of Edward IV
By the autumn of 1483 there were rumors that both princes had been killed in the Tower - but by whom?
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Woodville entered into an alliance with the enemies of King Richard III, offering her eldest daughter as a wife to the Lancastrian pretender to the throne, Henry Tudor.
In August 1485, Richard III met Henry Tudor at the Battle of Bosworth Field, where at a critical moment in the battle one of the king's supporters betrayed him and Richard was killed.
The traitor removed the crown from the deceased King Richard III and placed it on the head of Henry VII...
The War of the Roses ended and the Tudor dynasty ascended the throne in England, under which the country experienced a period of unprecedented prosperity.
Edward with his brother the Duke of York in the Tower. Painting by Paul Delaroche, 19th century.
But if Richard III was not allowed to live in peace by rumors that accused him of murdering young princes, then Henry VII was tormented by rumors that they were alive, and therefore could lay claim to the throne. Finally, he came up with a version according to which the boys, on the orders of Richard III, were strangled with pillows and buried under stone slabs at the foot of one of the Tower stairs.
Sir James Tyrell was made a scapegoat, tried and executed in May 1502 for "unspecified treason." Only later was it announced that Tyrell had confessed to killing the princes before his head was cut off.
All this was accepted as true and entered into the works of historians, like Thomas More’s biography of Richard III, published in 1534 and later used by Shakespeare to create the drama Richard III...
Shakespeare showed Richard as an evil despot who, without hesitation, hires an assassin to kill “two mortal enemies; I have no peace from them, no sleep for me... two illegitimate children in the Tower.”
Having completed this dirty deed, Richard calmly decides to seek the favor of the eldest sister of the murdered princes, who had already been promised as a wife to his rival, Henry Tudor.
Henry VII - King of England and Sovereign of Ireland, first monarch of the Tudor dynasty
The inconspicuous deformity - apparently, one of Richard's shoulders was slightly higher than the other - was increased by the playwright, and Shakespeare's Richard became a hunchback cursing fate.
In the happy ending of the play, after the victory on Bosworth Field, Henry Tudor proclaims: “The bloody dog is dead... and the feud is over”...
In 1674, almost 200 years after the alleged murder, a wooden box containing two children's skeletons was discovered during construction work in the Tower. It was decided that these were the remains of the murdered princes, and they were reburied in Westminster Abbey.
In 1933, the bone remains were transferred for research, which resulted in the conclusion of experts that these were the skeletons of two boys of the same age that Edward V and his brother were at the time of their disappearance (12-15 years old). The cause of death itself was not determined, but noticeable damage was found on the older boy’s jaw.
Elizabeth of York (11 February 1466 – 11 February 1503) was the eldest daughter of King Edward IV of England and Elizabeth Woodville. Wife of Henry VII
Among the people who last saw the princes in the Tower of London was the court physician, summoned to see Edward V when he had a toothache. The young king, the doctor said, prayed a lot and repented daily, as he was sure that he was facing a quick death. “Oh, if only my uncle would let me live,” he said, “even if I lose the kingdom”...
Edward with his brother the Duke of York in the Tower. Painting by Paul Delaroche.
According to Thomas More's version, which later became widely accepted, shortly after Richard's accession, Edward V and Richard of York were strangled in the Tower. Richard's apologists put forward their hypothesis, according to which Edward and his brother were alive throughout the reign of Richard III, and Henry VII killed them. It is quite possible, however, that the brothers were killed by the Duke of Buckingham, then constable of the Tower, in order to discredit the king, against whom he soon rebelled.
However, some historians have come to the conclusion that this find indirectly testifies against Henry VII. For reasons mentioned we'll talk below, Tudor was more interested in discrediting Richard III than anyone else, and did a lot for this. By accusing him of murdering the princes, he not only ruined the reputation of his rival, but also concealed his own crime. The fact is that if Richard committed the crime, the murdered children should have been 10-12 years old. The later age of the remains found indicates that the murder was committed at a different time: just after the Tudors came to power. Moreover, if Tyrrell was Richard's faithful servant, he could hardly succeed under the new reign and occupy a fairly important military post. Was the position of commandant a payment for a secret service rendered to the king? No one will know about this anymore - Henry Tudor was famous for his secrecy.
In Defense of Richard III
Through the efforts of the Tudors short reign Very little is known about Richard III. We know that the king patronized trade and increased the tax on imported goods, protecting English merchants from competition. He loved to read, which was not so much for the monarchs of that time business as usual. Through his efforts, a library and a small orchestra appeared in the royal palace, delighting the king and his guests with the sounds of flutes and viols. He lived with his wife Anna Neville much longer than Shakespeare portrays - as much as 13 years. She died shortly before Richard's death for an unclear reason, and there is no doubt that it was not his fault. Most likely, the queen could not bear the death of her only son, Edward, who barely lived to be ten years old. Children died often at that time, even royal ones.
Of course, Richard was no angel - he executed a dozen lords guilty of real or imaginary conspiracies. At the same time, he was much more humane than Henry Tudor, who replaced him, who sent his opponents to the chopping block with entire families. In Richard’s time there was nothing like this, which, in fact, cost him his life. In October 1483, Richard suppressed his rebellion former supporter Henry Stafford - the same Duke of Buckingham. The purpose of this speech was the elevation to the English throne of Henry Tudor, then former count Richmond. The treacherous Buckingham ended his life on the chopping block, but other active participants in the conspiracy were allowed to flee to France. The Stanley family involved in the case also escaped reprisals. Lord William Stanley was the second husband of Richmond's mother Margaret, who openly schemed in favor of her son. However, neither she nor her husband suffered due to their relationship with the rebel.
On 7–8 August 1485, Henry landed at Milford Haven in south Wales with an army of five thousand, mostly consisting of experienced French mercenaries. The rest of it included squads of feudal lords offended by Richard and Welsh archers loyal to their fellow countryman Tudor. Richard had more than 10 thousand soldiers, but their training and organization left much to be desired. Bypassing the posts the day before decisive battle, Heinrich saw one of the sentries sleeping and immediately stabbed him with the words: “You are sleeping - so sleep forever!” Richard's army did not post sentries at all. Lord Stanley, who commanded the reserve, was not prevented from exchanging letters with his stepson Tudor.
Having received promises of rank and honor, Stanley betrayed his master on the fateful day of the Battle of Bosworth. The Earl of Northumberland also avoided participating in the battle. The deceived king had only one thing left - to rush into a last desperate attack and die fighting. His mutilated body was exhibited in Leicester for three days for the amusement of the mob, and then buried without honor in the remote monastery of the Gray Brothers. His misadventures did not end there: during the destruction of the monasteries under Henry VIII, Richard’s bones were thrown from the grave into the River Soar.
The Battle of Bosworth led to the English throne a new dynasty Tudor. In fact, it was believed that Richmond opposed the Yorks as the leader of the Lancastrians. His mother Margaret was the great-granddaughter of the founder of this dynasty, although she was only a second cousin to King Henry VI - the seventh water on the jelly. If it were not for the long rivalry between the Lancasters and Yorks, which pretty much cleared out the ranks of contenders for the throne, no one would have seriously considered the rights to the crown of Henry Tudor. On his father's side, he was descended from the Welsh, who were despised in England and considered savages. York occupied the throne for immeasurable large base, so the winner under Bosworth looked like a formal usurper. The intensification of passions around the person of Richard III was a response to the weakness of the dynastic claims of the Tudors. First of all, Henry declared invalid the act of parliament that once substantiated the dynastic rights of the Yorks, and ordered the destruction of all existing copies of this document, as if he was afraid of the resurrection of one of the Yorks.
Most likely, Richard left a good memory of himself, and in comparison with Henry Tudor he clearly won. True, the new king continued the policy of supporting merchants and artisans, but he carried it out using methods that Richard never decided on. Taxes under Henry rose almost every year, townspeople were forcibly resettled to new places, and peasants were driven off the land. Crowds of beggars wandered along the roads, against whom severe measures were taken, including the gallows. The thrifty Tudor stopped issuing bread to his subjects in times of famine and did not exempt those who suffered from crop failure from taxes. All this led to an increase in the popularity of the overthrown dynasty. Therefore, many remembered the Yorks with nostalgia.
It is no coincidence that the Tudor court writers raised one slander after another against Richard III. When people who knew the late king went to their graves, dirt poured out in a torrent. They began to portray him as a real fiend of hell, ugly in soul and body. Shakespeare claims that he was born premature. According to another version, his mother paid for his birth with a long, painful pregnancy, and Richard was born feet first, with all his teeth and shoulder-length hair. Judging by these expressive descriptions, the little crooked monster looked like an evil elf and was lame, like the devil himself: Christian legend, Lucifer broke his leg when God threw him out of heaven.
Humanists-mythmakers
The image turned out to be very impressive. It remained to find and describe the place of Richard III in the history and events of that era, that is, to associate all the high-profile murders with his name. And the demonic Richard III, created by his enemies, eventually turned into proof of his guilt. Each chronicler, who did not want to quarrel with the king, hurried to make his contribution. TO early XVI the century lacked only a talented pen capable of bringing together everything that had been lied into one complete picture.
The final formulation of the myth was undertaken by the great English humanist Thomas More, who wrote “The History of Richard III” in 1513. One can remember about Thomas More that he coined the word “utopia”, and at the same time Utopia itself - a fictional country with an ideal social order. We use the word in a slightly different sense, meaning by utopia unrealizable dreams and empty fantasies. The humanism of More's time was also different from what is meant by the meaning of this word today. Humanists were called figures of the Renaissance who tried to bring back the achievements of ancient science and art into European everyday life.
Of course, such a person was not a corrupt scribbler who, at the dictation of the powers that be, composed libels against their enemies. For a humanist, the task of trashing King Richard was attractive as an opportunity to take a step towards triumph true values. Richard could have been sacrificed in order to expose social ills, showing the essence of tyrants, and this could have been done with complete connivance reigning monarch, who will only rejoice at the exposure of his enemy. There was also a personal reason for More’s dislike for Richard: his tutor and mentor was Cardinal John Morton, who was sharply hostile towards the late king (in Shakespeare’s play he is named Bishop of Ely).
With all this, More is in no hurry to consider all the rumors about Richard true. In his “History” he admits that in everything that happened under the last York there is much that is dark and hidden. That people say a lot of things out of spite and pass off suspicions and guesses as facts. He writes: “In those days everything was done secretly, one thing was said, another was implied, so there was nothing clear and openly proven.” But still, Richard’s verdict is unequivocal: under More’s pen, he turns into a physical and moral monster.
Ironically, the humanist faced the same fate as the monarch he had slandered - violent death and posthumous disgrace. In 1535 he was executed by order of Tudor's son, the despot king. Henry VIII. This prevented the spread of "History" under his own name, which for a long time remained prohibited. But the work itself, without mentioning its disgraced author, was continually rewritten in English historical works XVI century. In particular, More's "History" was included in the chronicle of Raphael Holinshed, published in 1577. In writing many of his plays, including Richard III, Shakespeare used it in the second edition, published 10 years later.
The great playwright was not a historian. He wasn't at all interested true face Richard - besides, it was unsafe to reveal this face during the reign of the Tudors. Like More, he was interested in something else - the true face of power, its impact on the human soul. In his play, Richard turned from a capable but rather mediocre ruler into a real genius - but only a genius of evil. He easily manipulates the insignificant people around him, one by one removing them from his path. He rejects moral standards, openly declaring: “The fist is our conscience, and the law is our sword!” But in Shakespeare's world, crime inevitably follows punishment. Fate itself acts against Richard in the form of the spirits of the people he killed, and Henry Tudor can only complete his defeat with his sword. The play is played, the lesson is taught. And it's not Shakespeare's fault that this time he's in the role visual aid turned out to be an unfortunate king who deserved a better fate in the eyes of his descendants.