Showing posts with label Richard III. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard III. Show all posts

Monday, November 24, 2025

Book Spotlight: The Traitor’s Son by Wendy Johnson

 


Caught between a king and a kingmaker, young Richard Plantagenet knows he’ll have to choose...

1461: Richard Duke of York, King by Right, has been branded a traitor and slain by his Lancastrian foes. For his eight-year-old son—Richard Plantagenet—England has become a dangerous place.

As the boy grapples with grief and uncertainty, his elder brother, Edward, defeats the enemy and claims the throne. Dazzled by his glorious sibling, young Richard soon discovers that imperfections lurk beneath his brother's majestic façade. Enter Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick—cousin, tutor, luminary—whose life has given him everything but that which he truly craves: a son. A filial bond forms between man and boy as they fill the void in each other’s lives. Yet, when treachery tears their world asunder, Richard faces an agonizing dilemma: pledge allegiance to Edward—his blood brother and anointed king—or to Warwick, the father figure who has shaped his life and affections.

Painfully trapped between duty and devotion, Richard faces a grim reality: whatever he decides will mean a fight to the death.

In "The Traitor’s Son", Wendy Johnson weaves a tapestry of loyalty, love, and sacrifice against the backdrop of England's turbulent history. Through the eyes of a young Richard III, readers are transported into a world where every choice is fraught with peril, and the bonds of kinship are tested to their limits. 

Perfect for fans of Hilary Mantel, Annie Garthwaite and Sharon K. Penman.

Praise for The Traitor’s Son:

Exquisitely written. An evocative and thoughtful retelling of the early life of Richard III.

~ Philippa Langley, MBE

Sometimes the perfect use of the written word takes my breath away. Not very often but this book is it. A wonderful story written so beautifully that I shall not forget it for a long time. Everything to my mind is perfect. The language, the story, the pacing. Just wonderful.”

~ Kindle Customer, 5* Amazon Review

Wonderfully woven story of a young Richard III. Woven with a sure knowledge of the history and a realistic telling of a story about a young boy finding his way through tragedy and triumph, uncertainty and a legacy he cannot escape.

Brilliant debut which promises more and more.

~ Cris, 5* Amazon Review

I loved this novel, it was beautifully written, extremely atmospheric, the characters’ personalities came through perfectly, can’t wait for the next instalment.

~ Linda Hayward, 5* Amazon Review

Really enjoyed this book. Holds the reader enthralled from the first paragraph to the last. The next volume can't be released soon enough.

~ J.M. Henderson, 5* Amazon Review


 Buy Link:

 Universal Buy Link:    https://books2read.com/u/mdJqL5

 This title is available to read on #KindleUnlimited.

 

 


Wendy Johnson has a lifelong passion for medieval history, its people, and for bringing their incredible stories to life. Her specific areas of interest are the fifteenth century, the Wars of the Roses, and Richard III in particular. She enjoys narratives that immerse the reader in the past and tries faithfully to recreate the later Middle Ages within her own writing. She has contributed to a number of historical anthologies and was a runner-up in the Woman and Home Short Story Competition 2008.

Wendy is also a founder member of Philippa Langley’s Looking for Richard Project, which located the king’s lost grave in 2012. She co-authored Finding Richard III: the Official Account of Research by the Retrieval and Reburial Project in 2014, and in 2019 received the Richard III Society’s Robert Hamblin Award. 

THE TRAITOR’S SON, volume one in a Richard III trilogy, is Wendy’s debut novel and she is currently working on the sequel.

 Author Links:

 Author’s Page on Publisher’s Website: https://madeglobal.com/authors/wendy-johnson/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/p/Wendy-Johnson-Author-61558759768505/

Book Bub:  https://www.bookbub.com/authors/wendy-johnson-cf3f97f7-3a8e-46d9-8394-c5a08caa594d

Amazon Author Page: https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/author/B0D14SQJP3

Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/208871994-the-traitor-s-son

 

 


 

 

Tuesday, July 18, 2023

Audiobook Spotlight and Snippet: The Godmother’s Secret by Elizabeth St.John Audiobook, narrated by Elizabeth St.John


Follow the tour HERE

"An extremely well-written book with depth and complexity to the main characters. The author says she wanted to write a book about family love and tolerance, and a woman's loyalty and courage. She has done so. This is the best book I've read in ages!"

The Ricardian Bulletin, Richard III Society

"The authenticity and historical research displayed within this story is immense and exquisite. Ms. St. John is sure to be a newfound favorite for fans of not only this fractious time in English history, but of all historical fans who adore rich, immersive prose."

Historical Fiction Company 2022 Book of the Year

"A very enjoyable read. The historical veracity is impeccable, and Elysabeth is a likeable, admirable character who faces interesting dilemmas with love and courage."
Historical Novel Society

If you knew the fate of the Princes in the Tower, would you tell? Or forever keep the secret?

May 1483: The Tower of London. When King Edward IV dies and Lady Elysabeth Scrope delivers her young godson, Edward V, into the Tower of London to prepare for his coronation, she is engulfed in political turmoil. Within months, the prince and his brother have disappeared, Richard III is declared king, and Elysabeth’s sister Margaret Beaufort conspires with her son Henry Tudor to invade England and claim the throne.

Desperate to protect her godson, Elysabeth battles the intrigue, betrayal, and power of the last medieval court, defying her Yorkist husband and her Lancastrian sister under her godmother’s sacred oath to keep Prince Edward safe. Bound by blood and rent by honour, Elysabeth is torn between King Richard and Margaret Beaufort, knowing that if her loyalty is questioned, she is in peril of losing everything—including her life.

Were the princes murdered by their uncle, Richard III? Did Margaret Beaufort mastermind their disappearance to usher in the Tudor dynasty? Or did the young boys vanish for their own safety? Of anyone at the royal court, Elysabeth has the most to lose–and the most to gain–by keeping secret the fate of the Princes in the Tower.

Inspired by England’s most enduring historical mystery, Elizabeth St.John blends her family history with known facts and centuries of speculation to create an intriguing story about what happened to the Princes in the Tower
.

 


  Buy Links:

Audiobook Buy Link: https://geni.us/TGSAudible

The ebook is available to read on Kindle Unlimited.

Universal Buy Link: https://geni.us/GodmothersSecret

 Audiobook Promo Link - 50% discount this week only 

https://www.audiobooks.com/promotions/promotedBook/680002/godmothers-secret

 


Autumn 1470 | Westminster Sanctuary

A secret has been conceived . . .

“Entry, in the name of God and King Henry!” My guard clouts the iron-clad door of Cheyneygates, challenging the sanctuary of Westminster Abbey. “The Lady Elysabeth Scrope demands entry!”

A murther of crows startles from the gables, cawing and whirling around my head and circling up into the clouded heavens. I join three fingers in the holy trinity and cross myself; head, chest, sinister and dexter. These ancient purveyors of death do not disturb me, for I have not survived this war to be hindered by a superstition. If there were a crow for every dead soldier, England would be a huge raucous rookery. But it never hurts to invoke God’s protection. The crows swoop and squabble and alight singly among the gargoyles on the parapets of the soot-stained Abbey. Like the granite tors of my Yorkshire home, these walls are impenetrable and inaccessible. And just as hostile. God offers protection to all who claim sanctuary. And men erect walls to keep them safe.

No stirring from within. I sigh. Not unexpected. “Knock again,” I command the guard. “Let them know their visitors will not leave.”

The waning October afternoon trickles shadows into the well of the courtyard. I pull my cloak closer, thankful I had chosen my finest weave to keep the warmth in and the damp out. The sun had shone golden when we rode out from London, but upon reaching Westminster we collided with the rain clouds streaming in from the west.

Fallen mulberry leaves clog the stone steps rising before me, rotting unswept in the hollows. Someone isn’t taking care of the abbot’s house. It is clear that no one has left nor entered for a while. The guard’s hammering is unanswered, and yet to the right of the door a candle flame glimmers through a browed window and a shadow flits elusively.

I push back my hood, and a spatter of rain needles my face. Here, gatekeeper. Here's reassurance I bear your fugitive no threat. I am of middling age, graceful, fair of face, my countenance pleasing, I’ve heard say. Hardly a threat.

The rain unfurls in sheets. I raise my voice. “I am not asking the queen to break sanctuary.” God knows the wretched woman would make it easier on all of us if she did. I motion the guard aside and edge up the slippery steps to the door. “I am here to join her.”

Elizabeth St.John

Elizabeth St.John’s critically acclaimed historical fiction novels tell the stories of her ancestors: extraordinary women whose intriguing kinship with England's kings and queens brings an intimately unique perspective to Medieval, Tudor, and Stuart times.

Inspired by family archives and residences from Lydiard Park to the Tower of London, Elizabeth spends much of her time exploring ancestral portraits, diaries, and lost gardens. And encountering the occasional ghost. But that’s another story.

Living between California, England, and the past, Elizabeth is the International Ambassador for The Friends of Lydiard Park, an English charity dedicated to conserving and enhancing this beautiful centuries-old country house and park. As a curator for The Lydiard Archives, she is constantly looking for an undiscovered treasure to inspire her next novel.

Elizabeth's books include her trilogy, The Lydiard Chronicles, set in 17th Century England during the Civil War, and her newest release, The Godmother's Secret, which explores the medieval mystery of the missing Princes in the Tower of London.

 Social Media Links:

 Website:  http://www.elizabethjstjohn.com/

Twitter:  https://twitter.com/ElizStJohn

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/ElizabethJStJohn

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabethjstjohn/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/elizabethjstjohn/

Book Bub: https://www.bookbub.com/authors/elizabeth-st-john

Amazon Author Page: https://geni.us/AmazonElizabethStJohn

Goodreads: https://geni.us/GoodreadsElizStJohn




Sunday, January 2, 2022

THE HISTORY GALS: Daily Mail: Richard III may have been INNOCENT of ‘Princes in the Tower’ murders by Mary Ann Bernal and Vivienne Brereton

 Following the Adventures of Jen and Lucy

Jen Hailing from New York City
Lucy Hailing from the Cotswolds


Breaking News from the Daily Mail spreads ripples across the pond where Lucy’s favorite Anglophile is doing a happy dance after reading the article about Richard III. The ecstatic American has only recently returned from Britain but still has one foot remaining firmly in Leicester.

Replying to Lucy’s email, Jen’s nimble fingers can’t type fast enough, prompting a video call between them to discuss the latest development furthering Richard III’s cause.

Jen is sitting in front of her computer, her excitement evident to Lucy when making the connection.

“I told you Richard was a nice young man with a kind face and couldn’t possibly be guilty,” beams Lucy. “And how wonderful that a historian from Leicester University believes the younger prince, the King’s nephew, and namesake, little Richard of Shrewsbury, was returned to his mother and lived out his life in peace. What a happy ending!”

“Who would have thought proof about the King’s lack of involvement with the princes would come up so soon after we visited Bosworth Field,” Jen replies. “Have to love historians!”

“We certainly do,” nods Lucy, lifting a cup of Earl Grey to her lips. “I think Philippa Langley has done an absolutely splendid job with her Missing Princes Project. That shows real dedication.”

“But what about the Queen not letting the scientists examine those infamous bones found under the stairwell in the Tower. We have better technology since they were last examined. It’s a cover-up if you ask me.”

Lucy gives a guilty glance over at the two porcelain corgis in pride of place on the mantelpiece as if they can hear the blasphemous words. With Charles and Camilla living only a mile or so away at Highgrove, one never knew who might pop in. A lifelong royalist, Jen’s words feel almost treasonous, but she can’t help wholeheartedly agreeing. “I would like to know the Queen’s reasons, I must say.”

“Me, too. So, what do you think? Is this John Evans really Edward V?”

Lucy picks up an organic lemon biscuit from the Highgrove shop, deciding she can’t imagine Camilla baking them. “Well, I must admit, the arguments are very convincing. Especially his name starting with E for Edward and V for the fifth king. And AS for ‘asa’ in Latin, which means sanctuary. Someone certainly had a sense of humour.”

Jen looks thoughtful. “Probably Richard himself? To show the boys’ mother he was still honoring their royal status. After all, he must have been the one who originally came up with the plan.”

“It’s odd that there are only two other glass portraits of Edward V and one is in the royal window at Canterbury Cathedral. Why is there one in a rural church in Devon in the middle of nowhere? It doesn’t make sense.”

“No, it doesn’t.”

Lucy can’t help herself. “Oh, Jen, how I wish you were here now. I could take you for supper at the Snooty Fox. Wouldn’t it be fun to catch up with all this? I’ve been thinking how hard it must have been for the princes’ grieving mother to strike a bargain with her brother-in-law after the death of her beloved husband, King Edward.”

“I don’t think Elizabeth Woodville was easily swayed. She must have known in her heart that a Protectorship was extremely dangerous to her son’s well-being. Edward would never rule; he’d be taken prisoner or killed because he stood in the way. And Richard must have mentioned the battles destroying the Houses of York and Lancaster. The country needed peace, and Richard had proven himself in the north. He could govern wisely, and that’s what England needed, a strong leader. She had no choice but to trust her brother-in-law.”

“That makes sense, Jen. As a mother of two sons myself and looking back from our time, I, too, would think it was safer if Richard, as Edward’s surviving brother, and an adult, took over.”

“If that’s what happened, score a point for Richard. Unfortunately, when he was killed, Henry VII’s mother, that conniving Margaret Beaufort, decided to blacken Richard’s name, saying it was better for her son if everyone thought the princes were dead. So, Yorkist Richard became a murderous uncle and the devil incarnate. And Henry Tudor, an angel from heaven. The House of York to whom the new Queen belonged - vilified - and the new King’s House of Tudor - praised to the skies. What bull! Excuse my French.”

Lucy sighs. “Poor Elizabeth Woodville. She didn’t stand a chance against that schemer. There certainly wasn’t room at court for a Queen’s Mother as well as a King’s Mother. But galling as it is, Margaret Beaufort was probably right. If everyone thought the boys were dead, no one would come looking for them. And there could be no factions. Elizabeth’s daughter would be married off to Margaret’s son.”

“Yep. A win-win situation for everyone except for Richard! Of course, I also loved the DaVinci code reference in the article. So exciting. It reminded me a bit of Indiana Jones and “digging in the wrong place.” There were so many clues no one bothered to check. Why? Because they didn’t want the truth! Looking the other way kept them in power – yeah, I’m talking about the Tudor upstart and his mother. Too convenient if you ask me. And let’s not forget that cunning Margaret had the boys’ mother packed off to Bermondsey Abbey. I’m sure that wasn’t in the original deal with Richard. She was probably jealous that Elizabeth was still beautiful and a King of England had lost his heart to her, a commoner.”

Lucy suddenly thinks of the wonderful courtship between the Queen and Prince Philip portrayed in The Crown, and her eyes mist over. “Actually, I think their story is very romantic.”

“I agree. Edward and Elizabeth’s marriage is a storybook happy ending. On the other hand, I don’t think Margaret was ever truly in love. She seemed like such a cold fish, hiding behind piety! Yet, in all fairness, Margaret probably had no choice and made the best of a bad situation. But I still think she is as guilty as sin! Her fingerprints are over everything, including this deal if it ever existed.”

“Well, we’ve got a real mystery on our hands now. As good as any episode of Midsummer Murders.”

“I love John Nettles. And he always got his man.” Jen giggles. “The cops caught many criminals by following the money. With us, we follow the documents! As for Thomas More, he was only five when the princes in the Tower disappeared. He was nothing more than a Tudor puppet. Until the day arrived when he wasn’t.”

“You mean when he lost his head,” says Lucy in a solemn voice.

“Exactly. No one said no to Henry VIII and lived to tell the tale! So, anything More wrote about Richard was total hearsay, not admissible in a court of law.”

Lucy is full of admiration for her friend. “Didn’t you study law at university, Jen? You always seem to know so much. I met Giles right after I left boarding school. He was a few years older and persuaded me not to bother continuing with my studies. I had a place at Durham University to study history.”

Jen notices a fleeting sadness when looking directly into Lucy’s eyes. She isn’t sure she likes the sound of Giles, whom she suspects is overbearing and controlling. He probably didn’t want Lucy to go to college to prevent her from outgrowing their relationship and running off with someone else smarter than him! She wonders if he approves of Lucy’s passion for history. Almost certainly not. Jen is more determined than ever to help her friend pursue her hobby. “On my next trip over, we must visit Coldridge and St. Matthew’s church and check out the clues mentioned in the article. What do you think?”

Lucy claps her hands together. “Oh, yes, I’d love that. I can’t wait to visit the church and see all the clues Edward or, should I say, John Evans left there. Ones that will absolve his uncle of all guilt. I wonder what all the naysayers are thinking now. The ones who are so vocal about Richard III being guilty. Good King Richard! We’re riding to the rescue. Your name will soon be cleared.”

Read the Daily Mail article HERE

 ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)  ( ¸.•´

 Follow the authors

 Vivienne Brereton

 Amazon Author Page    Twitter   Website

Mary Ann Bernal

 Amazon Author Page    Twitter    Website



The Princes in the Tower


Saturday, January 1, 2022

THE HISTORY GALS: Tavern Talk - Richard III - Guilty or Innocent? by Mary Ann Bernal and Vivienne Brereton

Following the adventures of Jen and Lucy

Jen Hailing from New York City
Lucy Hailing from the Cotswolds



Lucinda and her friend, Jennifer, visiting from New York City, are on the first day of their stay in Leicester. They are both members of an international Richard III Society and have become firm friends online – now thrilled to finally meet in person.

Jennifer has meticulously written a timetable for them, but by 6 p.m., Lucinda is secretly on the point of collapse; clearly, her once-weekly gentle Pilates with the girls isn’t enough to match Jennifer’s boot camp level of fitness. She also isn’t used to getting up at 5:30, but Jennifer convinced her they should arrive at Bosworth Field before the crowds. Back in the city, a patient curator has just gently ushered them out of the King Richard III Visitor Centre at closing time.

 

“See you tomorrow at nine, Jen,” she calls after them, giving a friendly wave.

 

Lucinda has noticed that everyone seems to like Jennifer; it’s certainly very hard not to be charmed by her new American friend.

 ******

                                                   

“Perhaps the museum with Richard’s original sword is still open,” Jennifer says with unflagging enthusiasm. “I can’t wait to ask if I can hold it.”

 

Slightly appalled at the idea, Lucinda puts one hand to her forehead. “I’m a tiny bit tired. Would you mind if we stopped for a drink?”


“What a great idea!” beams the American, darting into the nearby King Richard Arms before Lucinda can stop her. She was thinking more of a quiet pre-dinner G and T back at The Hilton, maybe a long soak in the bath. As they walk into the darkened pub, they immediately spot a man and a woman dressed in medieval garb enjoying a pint.

 

Jennifer grabs Lucinda’s arm. “Lucy, look, we need to get a picture of those two! Maybe, they’ll agree to a selfie?” She goes quite pink, obviously excited at the prospect.

 

Lucinda has given up asking Jennifer not to shorten her name. “Um, yes, but they do look rather engrossed in deep conversation – perhaps later; let’s not get too touristy, you promised!”


Jennifer laughs good-naturedly. “Yes, I did, didn’t I? No worries, I won’t embarrass you. But re-enactors are used to adoration from their fans, especially tourists!”

 

“Let’s order first,” Lucinda says, flagging down a passing barmaid and rather grandly asking for a bottle of their best champagne.

 

“Come, let’s sit near them,” Jennifer insists, dragging Lucinda to a nearby table.

 

Jennifer is taking in the quaint atmosphere, observing architecture from earlier times that has survived the passage of time. She chooses the seat closest to the couple who appear to be having a heated conversation.

 

Tis a shame what they’re saying about His Grace, God rest his soul,” the woman says while crossing herself. “And people are agreeing! It is not right, I tell you!”

Lucinda thinks it’s very bad manners for actors to be practicing their lines in public. She can’t imagine such a thing happening at The National in London.

 “Lower your voice,” the man in costume replies. “The king has spies everywhere.”

The Tudor upstart is not our king! It’s his mother’s doing that brought him here! Devout and pious, my foot! She’s a scheming charlatan, that one! Don’t be fooled by her lies! And that husband of hers is no better! The true king died in battle because of his betrayal! I can only imagine the pain Richard felt when he saw Stanley’s army fighting against him. There is no justice!”

 

You speak treason.”

 

I speak the truth!”

Lucinda is debating whether to ask them to keep their voices down when Jennifer leans over, and whispers in her ear – “They are really in character, aren’t they? We have to find out where they’re performing.”

At that moment, the door of the pub flies open. Two soldiers dressed in medieval garb and wearing Henry VII’s badge walk in. With hands on the pommels of their swords, they look around the room.

We have to leave,” the man says, glancing at the door. 

They are not looking for us,” the woman tells him.

We can’t chance it,” the man says as he pulls her out of her seat.

Jennifer is transfixed to see the fear in the woman’s eyes before turning her head back to the men. 

“Lucy, look! Those men – wow, don’t they look menacing?  Do you think they’ll take a picture with me? OMG, this is so exciting. We might be participating in a skit. You know, like those murder mystery dinners where the cast interacts with the audience. This is so cool.”

Jennifer dives into her purse to get her phone, hoping to take some authentic action shots, but by the time she turns around, the couple has vanished along with the king’s soldiers. “Where did they go?”

“Probably out through the rear entrance,” Lucinda replies, grateful to see the back of them. Now she can enjoy her champagne in peace. 

“I don’t see a back door. Now that is weird. What if we stumbled into the past somehow? That would explain us witnessing a moment in time – like a portal opening or something.”

“You Americans watch far too much television.”

“Then what is your explanation for them vanishing – poof! – just like that. I bet if we ask the barkeeper, he’ll deny seeing anything strange or out of the ordinary. It’s typical of that Brit stiff upper lip thing you have going where you say nothing about feelings or anything weird.”

“Jennifer, I think they just left – you missed the football crowd coming in a little while ago; that’s when they walked out of the door, I am sure.”

“Since we both saw them, suffice it to say they were there, and we did overhear the conversation. Let’s just toss it up to too much of the bubbly. But I assumed they were talking about Richard III and Henry VII. And the woman was right. Henry VII did not deserve to be king. Shakespeare did a great disservice to Richard’s memory. The same with Thomas More. Look who ruled while they were writing about Richard – the Tudors! Of course, they wouldn’t tell the truth. They’d be dead if they did! And if Shakespeare were alive today, he’d be sued for defamation of character. A good lawyer would have a field day in court – and it would be broadcast on CNN!” 

Lucinda reaches out for a menu. “You have to remember there are a lot of opinionated people here in the U.K. who are convinced of Richard’s guilt.”

“Oh, because they believe the fake news about the Princes in the Tower?”

Lucinda laughs. “I do love your passion. Let’s order some food to keep us going.”

“In mock trials in the U.S. and I believe here in the UK, Richard was acquitted. Hearsay and circumstantial evidence create reasonable doubt. Besides, I think our pious Margaret Beaufort orchestrated everything.”

Lucinda is impressed by her clever friend’s knowledge and liked the idea of an American-style courtroom drama. “How about we compare notes? The pros and cons for guilt or innocence,” she suggests, getting into the spirit of things. This American friend of hers was so different from her other ones. Much more fun a lot of the time, wearing her heart on her sleeve.

“Great idea! How about starting with the obvious fake news – like being two years in his mother’s womb. Seriously?  But then people have believed ridiculous headlines throughout the centuries – the one with a political candidate running a sex trafficking ring out of a pizza shop back in D.C. comes to mind. So, it’s not just your lot not thinking straight.”

Lucinda nods in agreement. “You’re right. Shakespeare wrote for dramatic effect. However, his skeleton has proven that Richard did have a mild form of scoliosis, but he certainly wasn’t the hunchback of popular folklore. He’s been accused of terrible crimes, but he was actually very brave charging into the thick of the battle.”

I agree, he was braver than most, kings included, but the nitty-gritty is with the princes in the Tower. What happened to them? They disappeared just like our couple with the soldiers,” Jennifer starts to laugh.

Lucinda smiles back. “But we can’t escape the fact that Richard did have motive and means. I read somewhere that the powerful Howards could have been involved with helping Richard. Just after little Edward V was taken to the Tower, John Howard ordered two sacks of lime.”

“Oh, I didn’t know that. But for sure, they were up to no good.”

 

“Who knows? The father and son were made Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Surrey just days into Richard’s reign.”

 

“I can see why that would be suspicious. But speaking of motive and means, Henry and his mother definitely had it. So did the Duke of Buckingham – what was his name?”

“Henry Stafford.”

Jennifer nods. “Ah, yes, another Henry.”

 

“My grandfather always used to say ‘never back a man who changes horses mid-race.’ Like Buckingham did when he switched from Richard to Margaret and Henry. No wonder Richard had him executed.”

 

He chose poorly,” Jennifer laughed, remembering the line from Indiana Jones, wondering if Lucy had seen the movie, then realizing she hadn’t when she didn’t react as one might expect. “In my opinion, Richard had no reason to get rid of his nephews. They were declared illegitimate; besides, Richard was already king. However, as the saying goes, the buck stops here – Richard was King, ergo, he has to take responsibility for their disappearance.”

Lucinda shakes her head. “That doesn’t seem fair at all. To be accused of a crime you didn’t commit, just because you’re in charge.”

But life isn’t fair. And let’s not forget Elizabeth Woodville, the boys’ mother. If she suspected Richard of murderous intent, she never would have allowed them to be housed in the Tower. Score a point for Richard!”

“That’s exactly what I’ve always thought too. I would never have allowed my Toby or Rupert to go anywhere near such a man when they were little. And when they did the reconstruction of Richard, he had such a pleasant face. A thoroughly nice young man of thirty-two. Not a monster at all.”

Monster-maker Shakespeare filled the seats. That’s all he cared about. People aren’t interested in the truth. They want drama; who cares about the lies – remember the gladiators of Ancient Rome – blood, and gore to satisfy the unruly spectators! But I am digressing. Margaret Beaufort had everything to lose. You know my views here, but I will add she included Henry in the conspiracy. The perks associated with wearing a crown are very tempting – money and power – the guy was not stupid – you will never convince me he was ignorant of his mother’s plotting. And don’t forget, with Richard dead, Edward’s son gets the crown, not Henry. Henry couldn’t let them live. Don’t you find it interesting that Henry never mentions the princes – like show the kids or the bodies – it was as if they never existed. And we can throw Buckingham into the mix. There you have it – the trifecta of guilty suspects. I rest my case.”

Lucinda raises her glass. “If I were on a jury and you were the prosecuting Queen’s Counsel, you’d convince me to send them all down.”

Their serious discussion is briefly interrupted by the barmaid placing enormous plates of food in front of them.” 

“I do love Yorkshire Pudding,” Jennifer says, her eyes lighting up as she gazes down at her plate. “Enjoy,” she says to Lucinda, picking up her fork.

Bon appetit,” replies Lucinda, seriously envious of Jennifer’s impressive roast beef dinner and secretly wishing she’d hadn’t opted for the far more virtuous poached sole, new potatoes with steamed kale and beetroot. None of her other friends would ever dare order such a calorific meal as Jennifer, but she seems oblivious. The sautéed mushrooms and oven crisp roast potatoes look so much more appetizing than the minuscule new potatoes on Lucinda’s own plate. And that Yorkshire Pudding is the biggest she’s ever seen! She hopes that at least she can persuade Jennifer to swap her mangetout for the little pot of mushy peas she’s been given. Her husband, Giles, is most disparaging about them and thinks they should have remained where they were in a fish and chip shop. Perhaps Jennifer has never tried them?

 

“I’m really not into peas,” Jennifer says, pushing the dish towards her friend after noticing the look on Lucy’s face. “I take it you don’t like mushy peas either.”

“They’re an acquired taste, one I’ve never managed, I’m afraid.”

Lucinda’s mouth is watering as she watches Jennifer spear a juicy-looking roast potato. “Now, remember to save room for the sticky toffee pudding.”

“I prefer the apple cobbler or crumble, as you call it here. But do you think they’ll serve it with a scoop of vanilla ice cream instead of clotted cream – that’s not really my thing.”

Lucinda desperately tries to keep her eyes averted from Jennifer’s plate as she pops a piece of bland fish into her mouth, followed by a particularly tough strand of the rather bitter kale. “I am sure they will.”

 

“This must be the best roast beef dinner I’ve ever tasted, Lucy! I love the mushrooms and even the potatoes. As for the Yorkshire Pudding – oh, to die for! How’s your fish?”

 

“Delightful,” lies Lucinda, silently dreaming of sticky toffee pudding.

 

“Why not try some of my roast beef? I’d rather see you enjoy these tasty morsels than ask for a doggie bag. I’m assuming they give doggie bags.” Lucinda starts to put her hand up in protest, but Jennifer quickly drops two beef strips onto her plate. “I insist.”

  

Jennifer’s thoughtfulness touches Lucinda as she picks up a strip of what turns out to be the most perfectly roasted joint of beef. Maybe having one’s name shortened isn’t such a bad thing after all. “You are right, Jen; the beef is a far better choice.”

 

“It’s so much fun trying to solve a real whodunit while enjoying good food with such a great friend. Perhaps that couple was sent here for us to reopen the case against Richard III, proving his innocence, once and for all. We could rewrite the history books!”

“Not an easy feat,” Lucinda smiles, clinking glasses. “A toast to our friendship and finding the truth, wherever it may take us.”

“Loyalty Binds Me!

“Loyaulté me Lie!” Here’s to our next adventure, Jen, wherever that may be.”

 ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨) ( ¸.•´

 Follow the authors

 Vivienne Brereton

 Amazon Author Page    Twitter   Website

Mary Ann Bernal

 Amazon Author Page    Twitter    Website

Richard III

Source: Wikimedia

 


Sunday, October 22, 2017

6 myths about Richard III


History Extra


Myth 1: Richard was a murderer Shakespeare’s famous play,
 Richard III, summarises Richard’s alleged murder victims in the list of ghosts who prevent his sleep on the last night of his life. These comprise Edward of Westminster (putative son of King Henry VI); Henry VI himself; George, Duke of Clarence; Earl Rivers; Richard Grey and Thomas Vaughan; Lord Hastings; the ‘princes in the Tower’; the Duke of Buckingham and Queen Anne Neville.

But Clarence, Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Buckingham were all executed (a legal process), not murdered: Clarence was executed by Edward IV (probably on the incentive of Elizabeth Woodville). Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were executed by the Earl of Northumberland, and Hastings and Buckingham were executed by Richard III because they had conspired against him. Intriguingly, similar subsequent actions by Henry VII are viewed as a sign of ‘strong kingship’!

There is no evidence that Edward of Westminster, Henry VI, the ‘princes in the Tower’ or Anne Neville were murdered by anyone. Edward of Westminster was killed at the battle of Tewkesbury, and Anne Neville almost certainly died naturally. Also, if Richard III really had been a serious killer in the interests of his own ambitions, why didn’t he kill Lord and Lady Stanley – and John Morton?

Morton had plotted with Lord Hastings in 1483, but while Hastings was executed, Morton was only imprisoned. As for the Stanleys, Lady Stanley was involved in Buckingham's rebellion. And in June 1485, when the invasion of his stepson, Henry Tudor was imminent, Lord Stanley requested leave to retire from court. His loyalty had always been somewhat doubtful. Nevertheless, Richard III simply granted Stanley's request - leading ultimately to the king's own defeat at Bosworth.

Myth 2: Richard was a usurper
The dictionary definition of ‘usurp’ is “to seize and hold (the power and rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority”. The official website of the British Monarchy states unequivocally (but completely erroneously) that “Richard III usurped the throne from the young Edward V”.

Curiously, the monarchy website does not describe either Henry VII or Edward IV as usurpers, yet both of those kings seized power by force, in battle! On the other hand, Richard III did not seize power. He was offered the crown by the three estates of the realm (the Lords and Commons who had come to London for the opening of a prospective Parliament in 1483) on the basis of evidence presented to them by one of the bishops, to the effect that Edward IV had committed bigamy and that Edward V and his siblings were therefore bastards.

Even if that judgement was incorrect, the fact remains that it was a legal authority that invited a possibly reluctant Richard to assume the role of king. His characterisation as a ‘usurper’ is therefore simply an example of how history is rewritten by the victors (in this case, Henry VII).

Myth 3: Richard aimed to marry his niece It has frequently been claimed (on the basis of reports of a letter, the original of which does not survive), that in 1485 Richard III planned to marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. There is no doubt that rumours to this effect were current in 1485, and we know for certain that Richard was concerned about them. That is not surprising, since his invitation to mount the throne had been based upon the conclusion that all of Edward IV’s children were bastards.

Obviously no logical monarch would have sought to marry a bastard niece. In fact, very clear evidence survives that proves beyond question that Richard did intend to remarry in 1485. However, his chosen bride was the Portuguese princess Joana. What’s more, his diplomats in Portugal were also seeking to arrange a second marriage there – between Richard’s illegitimate niece, Elizabeth, and a minor member of the Portuguese royal family!


Myth 4: Richard slept at the Boar Inn in Leicester In August 1485, prior to the battle of Bosworth, Richard III spent one night in Leicester. About a century later, a myth began to emerge that claimed that on this visit he had slept at a Leicester inn that featured the sign of a boar. This story is still very widely believed today.

However, there is no evidence to even show that such an inn existed in 1485. We know that previously Richard had stayed at the castle on his rare visits to Leicester. The earliest written source for the story of the Boar Inn visit is John Speede [English cartographer and historian, d1629].

Curiously, Speede also produced another myth about Richard III – that his body had been dug up at the time of the Dissolution. Many people in Leicester used to believe Speede’s story about the fate of Richard’s body. However, when the BBC commissioned me to research it in 2004, I concluded that it was false, and I was proved right by the finding of the king’s remains on the Greyfriars site in 2012. The story of staying at the Boar Inn is probably also nothing more than a later invention.

Myth 5: Richard rode a white horse at Bosworth
In his famous play about the king, Shakespeare has Richard III order his attendants to ‘Saddle white Surrey [Syrie] for the field tomorrow’. On this basis it is sometimes stated as fact that Richard rode a white horse at his final battle. But prior to Shakespeare, no one had recorded this, although an earlier 16th-century chronicler, Edward Hall, had said that Richard rode a white horse when he entered Leicester a couple of days earlier.

There is no evidence to prove either point. Nor is there any proof that Richard owned a horse called ‘White Syrie’ or ‘White Surrey’. However, we do know that his stables contained grey horses (horses with a coat of white hair).

Myth 6: Richard attended his last mass at Sutton Cheney Church
It was claimed in the 1920s that early on the morning of 22 August 1485, Richard III made his way from his camp to Sutton Cheney Church in order to attend mass there. No earlier source exists for this unlikely tale, which appears to have been invented in order to provide an ecclesiastical focus for modern commemorations of Richard.

A slightly different version of this story was recently circulated to justify the fact that, prior to reburial, the king’s remains will be taken to Sutton Cheney. It was said it is believed King Richard took his final mass at St James’ church on the eve of the battle.

 For a priest to celebrate mass in the evening (at a time when he would have been required to fast from the previous midnight, before taking communion) would have been very unusual! Moreover, documentary evidence shows clearly that Richard’s army at Bosworth was accompanied by his own chaplains, who would normally have celebrated mass for the king in his tent.

John Ashdown-Hill is the author of The Mythology of Richard III (Amberley Publishing, April 2015). To find out more about the author, visit www.johnashdownhill.com.

Sunday, August 6, 2017

5 Myths About Richard III


Made from History


BY GRAHAM LAND

 Richard of Gloucester, better known as Richard III, ruled England from 1483 until his death in 1485 at the battle of Bosworth. Most of our impressions about what kind of man and king he was are rooted in how he is represented in Shakespeare’s eponymous play, which was largely based on the propaganda of the Tudor family.

 However, facts about the much-maligned regent don’t always match up to his fictional portrayals.

 Here are 5 myths about Richard III that are either inaccurate, unknowable or just plane untrue.


Engraving of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth

 1. He Was An Unpopular King
The impression we have of Richard as an evil and treacherous man with a murderous ambition mostly comes from Shakespeare. Yet he was probably more or less well liked.

 While Richard was certainly no angel, he enacted reforms that improved the lives of his subjects, including the translation of laws into English and making the legal system more fair. His defence of the North during the rule of his brother also improved his standing among the people. Furthermore, his assumption of the throne was approved by Parliament and the rebellion he faced was a typical occurrence for a monarch at the time.

 2. He Was a Hunchback With a Shrivelled Arm
There are some Tudor references to Richard’s shoulders being somewhat uneven, and the examination of his spine shows evidence of scoliosis, yet none of the accounts from his coronation mention any such physical characteristics. More proof of posthumous character assassination are x-rays of portraits of Richard that show they were altered to have him appear hunchbacked. At least one contemporary portrait shows no deformities.

 3. He Killed the Two Princes in the Tower



The Princes in the Tower

 After the death of their father, Edward IV, Richard lodged his two nephews — Edward the V of England and Richard of Shrewsbury — in the Tower of London in preparation for Edward’s coronation. Instead, Richard became king and the two princes were never seen again.

 Though Richard certainly had a motive to kill them, there has never been any evidence discovered that he did, nor that the princes were even murdered. There are also other suspects, such as Richard III’s ally Henry Stafford and Henry Tudor, who executed other claimants to the throne. In the following years at least two people claimed to be Richard of Shrewsbury, leading some to believe that the princes were never murdered.

 4. Richard III Was a Bad Ruler
Like the claims of unpopularity, evidence does not support this assertion, which is mostly founded upon the opinions and contentions of the Tudors. Evidence suggests that Richard was an open-minded regent and talented administrator. In his brief reign he encouraged foreign trade and the growth of the printing industry as well as establishing — under his brother’s rule —the Council of the North, which lasted until 1641.

 5. Richard Poisoned His Wife
Anne Neville was Queen of England for most of her husband’s reign, but died in March 1485, 5 months before Richard III’s death on the battlefield. By contemporary accounts the cause of Anne’s death was tuberculosis, which was common at the time.

 Though Richard grieved publicly for his deceased wife, there were rumours that he poisoned her in order to marry Elizabeth of York, but what evidence we have generally refutes this, as Richard sent Elizabeth away and even later negotiated for her marriage with the future King of Portugal, Manuel I.


An 1890 painting of Anne Neville and a hunchbacked Richard III

Friday, March 10, 2017

Richard III's prayer book goes online … and is that a personal note?

Fox News


The personal prayer book of King Richard III — in which the English king likely scrawled a reminder of his birthday in his own hand — is now available to peruse online.

 Leicester Cathedral digitized Richard III's "Book of Hours" and published it on the church's website alongside an interactive interpretive text. The original manuscript is in Lambeth Palace Library and is too fragile for public display, according to the dean of Leicester Cathedral, the Very Rev. David Monteith.

 Richard III , who died in battle in 1485, was interred in Leicester Cathedral in 2015 after his body was discovered beneath a city council parking lot in Leicester. Born in 1452, Richard ruled England for only about two years. He ascended the throne in 1483 amid a cloud of suspicion: He had been declared regent for his nephew, the son of King Edward IV (Richard's brother). But in the aftermath of Edward IV's death, the old king's marriage was declared invalid and his children illegitimate, which meant the crown became Richard's. His two nephews were never seen publically again, leading to rumors that Richard III had them murdered. The fate of the so-called "Princes in the Tower" remains a mystery to this day.

 The mystery of Richard III's nephews, along with Shakespeare's rather unflattering tragedy "Richard III," gave the king something of an unsavory reputation. But he was beloved in his adopted hometown of York during his life, and many modern admirers argue that Shakespeare's portrayal was slander. (The playwright was operating in the era of the Tudors, political enemies of Richard III and his dynasty, and would have had an incentive to paint the defeated king as evil.)

 The prayer book shows a softer, devoted side of Richard. Medieval laypeople kept personal books of hours with devotions that they were supposed to perform at certain times of day. Richard's "Book of Hours" was not originally made for him, according to a scholarly text by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs accompanying the Leicester digitization. There were, however, additions likely added at the king's request, as well as one notation that Richard III probably made himself.

 The first addition was a prayer called the Collect of St. Ninian, a missionary who converted England's Southern Picts to Christianity. Richard apparently had a special devotion to this saint, as he declared St. Ninian's feast day to be a principal one for his college at Middleham, Sutton and Visser-Fuchs wrote.

 Another addition, in the same script, was "The prayer of Richard III," a long devotional that is often mistakenly believed to be written for the king; in fact, Sutton and Visser-Fuchs wrote, it was a common prayer of the time, slightly edited to include Richard's name. After the prayer was a litany, which does appear unique to the king, Sutton and Visser-Fuchs wrote. The litany has not been found elsewhere, they wrote, and features a supplicant asking for God's mercy and protection. Unfortunately, Sutton and Visser-Fuchs wrote, much of the original litany is missing, making it difficult to glean much about Richard III's personal preoccupations from the text. There are references to protection from heathens, they wrote, suggesting Richard III's interest in the Crusades. 

King's handwriting

Perhaps the most fascinating page of the Book of Hours for those wanting to know the man behind the monarch is the calendar page for October. Most of the calendar is standard, with lists of saints' days and notations about the length of day and night. There are a few edits, like a note that someone named Thomas Howard died unexpectedly on March 28, and that someone else died on Aug. 25.

 On Oct. 2, though, there is a note in handwriting found nowhere else in the book. In a heavy, sprawling hand, the inscription reads, "hac die natus erat Ricardus Rex Anglie tertius Apud Foderingay Anno domini mlccccliio."

 Translation? "On this day was born Richard III King of England A.D. 1452." The note must have been written after the king's coronation on July 6, 1483, "and probably by the King himself," Sutton and Visser-Fuchs wrote.

The page with the king's probable handwriting is on sheet 7v of the manuscript and can also be found in Figure 28 of Sutton and Visser-Fuchs' text.

 Original article on Live Science .

Friday, January 27, 2017

King Richard III Feasted on Wine and Swans

Seeker


BY ROSSELLA LORENZI

 In the last three years of his life, King Richard III consumed up to three liters of alcohol per day and feasted on swan, egret and heron, analysis of the monarch’s teeth and bones has revealed.

 Researchers from the British Geological Survey and the University of Leicester examined changes in chemistry in the bones of the last Plantagenet king, whose remains were found buried beneath a parking lot in the English city of Leicester in 2012.

 “We applied multi-element isotope techniques to reconstruct a full life history,” Angela Lamb, isotope geochemist at the British Geological Survey, Richard Buckley from the University of Leicester Archaeological Services, and colleagues wrote in the latest issue of the Journal of Archaeological Science.

 Born in Northamptonshire in 1452, Richard became King of England in 1483 at the age of 30, ruling for just two years and two months.

 The king, depicted by William Shakespeare as a bloodthirsty usurper, was killed in 1485 in the Battle of Bosworth, which was the last act of the decades-long fight over the throne known as War of the Roses. He was defeated by Henry Tudor, who became King Henry VII.

 The researchers measured the levels of certain chemicals, such as strontium, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon and lead that relate to geographical location, pollution and diet in three locations on the skeleton of Richard III.

 They analyzed bioapatite and collagen from sections of two teeth, which formed during childhood and early adolescence, and from two bones: the femur, which represents an average of the 15 years before death, and the rib, which remodels faster and represents between 2 and 5 years of life before death.

 “The isotopes initially concur with Richard’s known origins in Northamptonshire, but suggest that he had moved out of eastern England by age seven, and resided further west, possibly the Welsh Marches,” the researchers wrote.

The isotope changes became evident between Richard’s femur and rib bones, revealing “a significant shift” in the nitrogen isotope values towards the end of Richard life, coinciding directly with his time as King of England.

 The shift would correspond to an increase in consumption of luxury items such as game birds (swans, herons, egret) and freshwater fish.

 “The Late Medieval diet of an aristocrat consisted of bread, ale, meat, fish, wine and spices with a strong correlation between wealth and the relative proportions of these, with more wine and spices and proportionally less ale and cereals with increasing wealth,” the researchers said.

 Another significant shift was recorded in Richard’s oxygen isotope values, which also rose towards the end of his life.

 “As we know he did not relocate during this time, we suggest the changes could be brought about by increased wine consumption,” Lamb and colleagues wrote.

 The analysis showed there was a 25 percent increase in Richard’s consumption of wine when he became king.

 This would equal to a bottle of wine per day, in addition to the large quantities of beer most medieval men consumed at that time, giving Richard an overall alcohol consumption of two to three liters per day.

 Indeed, Richard began to indulge in food and wine since his coronation banquet, noted for being particularly long and elaborate. The excesses are likely to have continued throughout his short lived reign.

 “It is not unexpected that his consumption of wine and rich foods increased over the last few years of his life,” the researchers wrote.

 Richard III will be finally reburied in Leicester Cathedral on March 26, 2015 at the end of a seven-day program of events in Leicester and Leicestershire to honor the king.

 Image: Late 16th century portrait of Richard III, housed in the National Portrait Gallery, London. Credt: Wikimedia Commons.

Thursday, December 8, 2016

The 5 greatest mysteries behind the Wars of the Roses

History Extra


The Young Princes in the Tower, 1831, by Paul de la Roche (1910). (Photo by The Print Collector/Print Collector/Getty Images)

5) What was really wrong with King Henry VI? Henry VI (1422–60 and 1470–71) was comfortably the most incompetent king of the whole Plantagenet line, and his benign but ultimately disastrous rule began the series of conflicts that we now call the Wars of the Roses.

 The crisis broke in 1453 when Henry appears to have suffered a near-complete mental collapse. He stopped responding to other people; he didn’t recognise his own wife or newborn son; and for several months he was completely helpless and utterly withdrawn from the world. One contemporary said the king was “smitten with a frenzy”.

 The obvious comparison was with Henry’s grandfather Charles VI of France, who had suffered similarly long bouts of madness in which he attacked his courtiers, smeared himself in his own waste and screamed that he felt thousands of sharp needles piercing his flesh.

 So was Henry’s illness hereditary? And how would we diagnose it today? Catatonia? Schizophrenia? Severe depression? Medical diagnoses across the centuries are fraught with difficulties, and it is quite possible that we will never be able to say for sure. What we do know is that Henry’s debilitating illness had a correspondingly dreadful effect on both the man and his kingdom, as his subjects fought at first to save the realm, and then to steal control of it for themselves.

 4) Were the Tudors really Tudors? The great survivors of the Wars of the Roses were a strange little half-Welsh, half-French family who took the surname Tidyr, or Tudur, or Tudor. Famously, it was Henry Tudor who emerged victorious from the battle of Bosworth in 1485 and, as Henry VII of England, went on to establish the most famous royal dynasty of them all.

 But the origins of this remarkable family are surprisingly foggy. Their first connection to the English crown came through Henry VII’s grandmother, Catherine de Valois, widow of Henry V and mother of Henry VI. As dowager queen Catherine had caused quite a stir by secretly marrying her lowly servant, Owen Tudor. Plenty of romantic rumours have swirled around that union, but whatever the case, during the early 1430s Catherine gave birth to several children who took the Tudor name, most notably Henry VII’s father, Edmund Tudor, and another boy named Jasper Tudor.

 But were they really Tudors? Intriguingly, shortly before Catherine became involved with Owen, there was a widespread suggestion that she was having an affair with Edmund Beaufort, the future duke of Somerset, who would be killed at the battle of St Albans in 1455. This rumour was taken so seriously that parliament took up the matter and issued a special statute restricting the right of queens of England to remarry.



Edmund Beaufort, c1450. Engraving taken from portrait painted by Hans Holbein the Younger. (Photo by Kean Collection/Getty Images)

 It has been speculated that Catherine’s marriage to the lowly Owen Tudor was contracted to cover up her politically dangerous relationship with Edmund Beaufort. In that case, is it possible that Edmund Tudor was not a Tudor at all, but was actually given the forename of his real father? 

The great 15th-century expert Gerald Harriss made precisely this suggestion in a fine footnote written in 1988:

 “By its very nature the evidence for Edmund ‘Tudor's’ parentage is less than conclusive, but such facts as can be assembled permit the agreeable possibility that Edmund ‘Tudor’ and Margaret Beaufort [ie Edmund Tudor’s wife and Henry VII’s mother] were first cousins and that the royal house of ‘Tudor’ sprang in fact from Beauforts on both sides.”

 Wouldn’t that be something?

 3) Who was Edward IV’s real wife?
The history books usually state that Edward IV’s wife was Elizabeth Woodville (or ‘Wydeville’). That in itself is a delicious fact: when Edward married Elizabeth in 1464 she was of lowly rank, a widow with two children from her previous marriage and one of the king’s subjects, rather than a foreign princess. What’s more, Edward’s choice of queen upset his closest political ally, the earl of Warwick; caused diplomatic trouble with more than one other country; and annoyed a significant number of other English noble families.

 But nothing caused quite so much trouble as the suggestion that Edward IV had in fact married someone else. Following the king’s death in 1483, his brother Richard duke of Gloucester claimed that, before the Woodville marriage took place, Edward IV had promised to marry Lady Eleanor Boteler (née Talbot), a daughter of the famous soldier John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury.

 In 1483 Richard argued that since Edward had once promised to marry Lady Eleanor, he had not subsequently been legally entitled to marry Elizabeth Woodville. This in turn made their union invalid, and their children bastards.


Elizabeth Woodville, 1463. (Photo by The Print Collector/Print Collector/Getty Images)

 This claim was the basis of Richard’s usurpation of the crown. He made it known that Edward IV’s young son and successor, Edward V, was illegitimate, and instead claimed the throne for himself, as Richard III.

 But was it true? Conveniently, in 1483 the case could not be properly tested, since Lady Eleanor had died 15 years previously. But today, those seeking to rehabilitate Richard III’s reputation frequently rely on the ‘pre-contract’ argument to defend his actions.

 2) Did Richard III really kill the princes in the Tower?
Perhaps the greatest mystery of them all, and certainly the question most likely to start a fistfight among any given group of medievalists.

 For centuries Richard III’s name has been blackened thanks to his usurpation of the throne in 1483 and the subsequent disappearance of his nephews, Edward V and Richard duke of York – better known as ‘the princes in the Tower’.

 Did the boys really die? And if so, who was to blame? Did Richard have them murdered? Or did they die of natural causes? Were there other agents at work? And if so, who? Could it be, as one contemporary source suggested, that Richard’s sometime ally, the oily and feckless Henry Stafford, duke of Buckingham, was the prime mover behind the boys’ deaths? Or was there an even more sinister conspiracy, perhaps involving Henry Tudor’s wily mother, Margaret Beaufort?

 Readers of my book The Hollow Crown (2014) will know where I stand on this, and you can find out more by watching the third episode of Channel 5’s Britain’s Bloody Crown. But I do not pretend that the case is closed. For many Ricardians, the charge of murdering the princes in the Tower is a heinous and unjust accusation levelled at a grievously misunderstood monarch… Where do you stand?

 1) Was Perkin Warbeck really Richard IV? An odd young man with an even odder name, Perkin Warbeck is usually described as either a ‘pretender’ or an ‘imposter’. Who was he really?

 We usually think of the Wars of the Roses as having ended in 1485 at the battle of Bosworth. In fact, the threat of a revived dynastic war to put a Yorkist king back on the English throne haunted England deep into the Tudor years – well into the 1520s, in fact.

 One of the most dangerous times was the 1490s, when the threat of Yorkist plots sponsored from the continent seriously unsettled the fragile Tudor regime. For several years the figurehead for these plots was a young man who claimed to be Richard, duke of York – the younger of the princes in the Tower. If he were crowned, he would have taken the throne as King Richard IV.


Perkin Warbeck, c1495. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

 It is easy now to scoff at all this. But at the time, this supposed Richard IV had serious support from rulers in Ireland, France, the Netherlands, Scotland and the Holy Roman Empire, and he attempted several sea invasions of England.

 Events came to a head in 1497 when the pseudo-Richard finally succeeded in landing in England and joined up with rebels in the west country. He was captured and brought before Henry VII, where he confessed that he was not, in fact, Richard duke of York, but a French-Flemish merchant’s son, a troublemaker and a puppet for enemies of the Tudor regime.

 At first Henry VII was merciful, keeping Warbeck at court and parading him in public to assure people that he was not the real Richard duke of York. But this peaceful situation did not last long. In 1498 Warbeck escaped. He was recaptured and placed in the Tower of London. But while there he was caught up in further plotting against the crown, this time in league with another Yorkist claimant, Edward earl of Warwick.

 Again the plotting was foiled and in 1499 Warbeck was forced once more to confess his imposture, and was hanged at Tyburn.

 Yet doubt remains. Was Warbeck a pretender? Or were his confessions made under duress? The plots against Henry VII have more than a whiff of a set-up about them: could it be that really was the young Richard duke of York, entangled in a nightmare of Henry VII’s concoction and forced to deny his own birthright?

 Most historians would say not. But the possibility remains tantalizing enough to consider…