English Car Park Where Remains Of Richard III Were Found Declared A Monument
Circa 1480, King Richard III (1452-1485).
Posted on 12/01/2019 3:28:37 PM PST by robowombat
1499: Edward, Earl of Warwick, the last Plantagenet claimant
November 28th, 2019
On this date in 1499, the Plantagenet prince Edward, Earl of Warwick lost his head — and his once-mighty house lost its last direct male successor to its claim upon kingship.
A lagging casualty of the Wars of the Roses, little Ted was only three when he lost his old man to a treason charge and a butt of malmsey. The same blade dangled close to Edward’s neck throughout his few years, for he became a potential royal claimant after his young cousins, the Princes in the Tower, were killed off in 1483.
Warwick was all of eight years old at that moment. When he was 10, he was shut up in the Tower of London by Henry VII, never really to leave it again.* “Being kept in the Tower from his tender age, that is to say from his first year of the king [i.e., of Henry VII’s reign] to this fifteenth year, out of all company of men and sight of beasts, in so much that he could not discern a goose from a capon,” in the words of chronicler Edward Hall. Some historians have taken that to mean that Edward was was mentally disabled, but under the circumstances, who wouldn’t be?*
It was cold and eminently practical mistreatment, for this boy however innocent in his own person was the potential champion of the Yorkists. In 1487, an abortive rebellion arose in Warwick’s name, with a 10-year-old kid named Lambert Simnel presented as a faux-Edward. Henry crushed the rebellion and was obliged to make his proofs to the populace by parading the real Edward around London which was at least a rare excursion outside the Tower walls for the tween hostage.**
Pretenders tossed the boy prisoner hither and yon on the currents of fortune. The next one to have a go at Henry, a Low Countries twerp named Perkin Warbeck who claimed to be one of the lost Princes in the Tower, mounted landings in the mid-1490s, vainly hoping to spark a general revolt. After he was finally captured in 1497, he wound up in the Tower with poor Warwick. Warbeck persuaded the desperate youth upon a desperate course — or was it by the intentional policy of that scheming king to dispose of a threat and thereby cinch that famously ill-fated Spanish marriage so productive of clientele for our grim annals? A century-plus later, Francis Bacon described in History of the Reign of King Henry VII the popular suspicion that had attached to this convenient tying up of loose ends:
it was ordained, that this winding-ivy of a Plantagenet should kill the true tree itself. For Perkin, after he had been a while in the Tower, began to insinuate himself into the favour and kindness of his keepers, servants to the lieutenant of the Tower Sir John Digby, being four in number; Strangeways, Blewet, Astwood, and Long Roger. These varlets, with mountains of promises, he sought to corrupt, to obtain his escape; but knowing well, that his own fortunes were made so contemptible, as he could feed no man’s hopes, and by hopes he must work, for rewards he had none, he had contrived with himself a vast and tragical plot; which was, to draw into his company Edward Plantagenet earl of Warwick, then prisoner in the Tower; whom the weary life of a long imprisonment, and the often and renewing fears of being put to death, had softened to take any impression of counsel for his liberty. This young Prince he thought these servants would look upon, though not upon himself: and therefore, after that by some message by one or two of them, he had tasted of the earl’s consent; it was agreed that these four should murder their master the lieutenant secretly in the night, and make their best of such money and portable goods of his, as they should find ready at hand, and get the keys of the Tower, and presently let forth Perkin and the earl. But this conspiracy was revealed in time, before it could be executed. And in this again the opinion of the King’s great wisdom did surcharge him with a sinister fame, that Perkin was but his bait, to entrap the earl of Warwick.
… Howsoever it were, hereupon Perkin, that had offended against grace now the third time, was at the last proceeded with, and by commissioners of oyer and terminer arraigned at Westminster, upon divers treasons committed and perpetrated after his coming on land within this kingdom, for so the judges advised, for that he was a foreigner, and condemned, and a few days after executed at Tyburn; where he did again openly read his confession, and take it upon his death to be true. This was the end of this little cockatrice of a King, that was able to destroy those that did not espy him first. It was one of the longest plays of that kind that hath been in memory, and might perhaps have had another end, if he had not met with a King both wise, stout, and fortunate. … And immediately after was arraigned before the Earl of Oxford, then for the time high steward of England, the poor Prince, the Earl of Warwick; not for the attempt to escape simply, for that was not acted; and besides, the imprisonment not being for treason, the escape by law could not be treason, but for conspiring with Perkin to raise sedition, and to destroy the King: and the earl confessing the indictment, had judgment, and was shortly after beheaded on Tower-hill.
This was also the end, not only of this noble and commiserable person Edward the earl of Warwick, eldest son to the duke of Clarence: but likewise of the line male of the Plantagenets, which had flourished in great royalty and renown, from the time of the famous King of England, King Henry the second. Howbeit it was a race often dipped in their own blood. It hath remained since only transplanted into other names, as well of the imperial line, as of other noble houses.
But it was neither guilt of crime, nor treason of state, that could quench the envy that was upon the King for this execution: so that he thought good to export it out of the land, and to lay it upon his new ally, Ferdinando King of Spain. For these two Kings understanding one another at half a word, so it was that there were letters shewed out of Spain, whereby in the passages concerning the treaty of marriage, Ferdinando had written to the King in plain terms, that he saw no assurance of his succession, as long as the earl of Warwick lived; and that he was loth to send his daughter to troubles and dangers. But hereby, as the King did in some part remove the envy from himself; so he did not observe, that he did withal bring a kind of malediction and infausting upon the marriage, as an ill prognostic: which in event so far proved true, as both Prince Arthur enjoyed a very small time after the marriage, and the lady Catharine herself, a sad and a religious woman, long after, when King Henry the eighth his resolution of a divorce from her was first made known to her, used some words, that she had not offended, but it was a judgment of God, for that her former marriage was made in blood; meaning that of the earl of Warwick.
* The situation reminds of little Tsar Ivan VI in the 18th century, although that Russian prince was held from an even younger age, under even more oppressive conditions.
** Being only a figurehead, the pretend Warwick ironically enjoyed great mercy compared to the real one. Simnel was installed in Henry’s kitchens instead and lived out a comfortable life in the royal household.
Just finished reading a book about Edward I. Quite instructive.
A couple or so of the Plantagenet kings were buried in France.
Richard the Lionheart, among them, I believe.
1499. Seems like only yesterday.
P.S. It was Trump’s fault. Heard it on NPR./s
Didn’t they find Richard III remains under a parking lot? Think England..
Recent too from what i recall..
And thus was the democrat party born. The results matter no what.
He and his wife Eleanor of Castile are supposed to be my 19th great-grandparents.
When Edward IV died, we all know that Richard, Duke of Gloucester had Edward's son's named "bastards" so they wouldn't be in line to the throne. George, 1st Duke of Clarence, (next in line to the throne after Edward), had been locked away, found guilty of treason, and he was done away with in 1478. So why did Richard take the throne, instead of pursuing it for Teddy, who would have been next in line after his father George? There are plenty of people who don't think Richard murdered his nephews, but I'm not one of them. I believe he did have them killed, but no one has ever answered the question as to why he didn't pursue the crown for Teddy? Richard's only legitimate son Edward lived to be 10 years of age, dying in 1484, a year after Edward IV died.
Easy, George was attainted and therefore his son lost his inheritance rights.
Teddy’s sister Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury was executed by Henry VIII in 1541.
Recall that the Normans from french Normandy invaded England and defeated the Anglo saxons. Ever since 1066 the throne of England has had french ancestors sitting until the Germans took over the throne before Victoria’s father was in the throne.
Thanks!
Recall that the Normans from french Normandy invaded England and defeated the Anglo saxons. Ever since 1066 the throne of England has had french ancestors sitting until the Germans took over the throne before Victoria’s father was in the throne.
Cool. According to my family tree, Edward and Eleanor are my 24th great grandparents. I have been watching a couple of documentaries about the Plantagenets on youtube, I think one of them is called The Devil’s Brood. Very interesting family.
English Car Park Where Remains Of Richard III Were Found Declared A Monument
Circa 1480, King Richard III (1452-1485).
William IV who was King before Victoria was Queen was her Uncle, not her father.
Sharon Kay Penman wrote a book called Devil’s Brood. She is one of my favorite authors.
You’re related to my husband’s family. Not sure the degree of kinship but his mom is descended from Edmund Plantagenet who was a brother of Edward I.
The only thing keeping him from the throne is my inability to choose a tiara.
Interesting theory by Josephine Tey about Richard III and the disappearance of the princes in the tower, his nephews: if Richard had had them killed, all he would have to do is produce the same smothered bodies: poor boys, dead of a fever, I really am king now.
Whereas, when Henry VII comes in with his army, he really should restore the elder prince to the throne, or produce a body, dead some time back. But he can’t do that; the princes disappear for good, and he marries their sister, and adds the boys’ murder to Richard’s indictment.
Imagine Shakespeare casting you as a villain. What a way to be remembered.
Normans are not Gallic "French," but are more correctly decedents of "Norsemen," aka Vikings. They are Scandinavians.
FReegards!
I read an 1880s wine travelogue through Champagne and other sparkling wine regions (off Gutenberg), and it mentioned the Platagenets being buried 20 miles away or so.
In the heart of Protestant France, too, iirc.
bump for later read
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.