Posted on 12/05/2024 5:24:29 AM PST by SunkenCiv
Some random thoughts of the skeptical kind:
The inconvenient young Princes were kept in the Tower because of their claim on the succession, a substantial threat first to Richard III, then Henry VII. (Though, conceivably R-III put his nephews there to protect from H-VII). It’s hard to believe the Princes would have: been given a Royal Chain of Office, ever; or, been allowed to possess such a powerful symbol within the Tower, such that their killers could have seized upon it. Those wanting to promote the rights of Prince Edward, or weaken Henry VII, might have created such a chain, before or after the Princes’ presumed deaths.
That Margaret Capel’s Will says the bequeathed chain had belonged to Edward V does not make it true, even if she believed it so. Wikipedi notes that “Capel loaned money on the security of jewellery” — that’s a great way to end up with gold chains, of real or hyped provenances.
Sir Giles Capell was definitely in the camp of Henry VII. Would he want anything to do with a Yorkist Chain of Office, the mere existence of which challenges Henry VII’s right to the throne?
Anyway — This mysteries remains eternally fascinating specifically because we’ll never know the truth of it. As always, thank you for finding and posting interesting things that give perspective. Compared to the Past, the Present is such a Wimp.
> The inconvenient young Princes were... a substantial threat first to Richard III, then Henry VII.
After the Titulus Regius was made, they were no longer a threat to R3, per se, but obviously had to be kept under lock and key to keep them from coming under the power of any of R3’s rivals.
> It’s hard to believe the Princes would have: been given a Royal Chain of Office
I agree. It’s in the painting, but that painting was probably made posthumously, as part of the Tudor propaganda campaign.
> That Margaret Capel’s Will says the bequeathed chain had belonged to Edward V does not make it true
I wholeheartedly agree. And the fact that it has never come to light since mitigates in favor of this remaining an unsubstantiated claim.
> Sir Giles Capell was definitely in the camp of Henry VII. Would he want anything to do with a Yorkist Chain of Office, the mere existence of which challenges Henry VII’s right to the throne?
Exactly so. Family vs family was the pattern throughout history, and among the Plantagenets, and the Tudors. Capell wouldn’t dare keep it, unless VII had made a gift of it, and I can’t imagine VII ever wanting to do that. It would be an admission of murder, really.
> thank you for finding and posting interesting things that give perspective.
My pleasure!
Have you seen Amazon Prime’s Iceman yet? I watched the first five minutes and it looked pretty good.
Found it. 🥀 Anne de Mowbray’s Reburial 🥀
.The Tudor Intruders -and more on Facebook.
“🥀 On the 31st May 1965, Anne was reburied with tenderness, love and care.
Anne’s remains, surrounded by white roses, were once again laid in state in the Jerusalem Chamber, as they had been 500 years previously.
Anne was reburied in the Chapel, with reports stating that she had been interred as near as possible to the remains of her young husband, Richard -”
Thx.
[snip] Following her death her father-in-law sent three barges to escort her body back to Westminster, where she lay in state in the Jerusalem Chamber before being buried in the Chapel of St Erasmus in Westminster Abbey which had been recently built by Elizabeth Wydeville, the funeral costs amounting to £215.16s.10d. This chapel was pulled down in 1502 to make way for a new grandiose Lady Chapel built by Henry VII. [/snip]
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.