Pictures of England Pictures of England

Exploring the most Picturesque & Historic parts of England

Over 150,000 photos of England
22,000+ members
Click here to join the community
Little Missenden,BucksGreater Spotted Woodpecker, Hedge End, Southampton, Hampshire, EnglandThatched CottageThatched cottagesDunster CottagesThe new bridge over the new canal

New Article - Did Richard III Kill The Princes in the Tower? by Cheri Thomas

 
Ron Brind
Ron Brind
Posts: 19052
Joined: 26th Oct 2003
Location: England
quotePosted at 12:34 on 23rd March 2008
Sorry for hijacking the thread Cheri, but I guess nobody will be sufficiently interested in my additional comments in order for it to dilute your fantastic piece of history (well not now that they know about my past education anyway).
My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Cheri ThomasPremier Member - Click for more info
Cheri Thomas
Posts: 70
Joined: 5th Mar 2006
Location: USA
quotePosted at 13:10 on 25th March 2008
No problem my friend.  I enjoy the comments and now I know a lot more about you.  We are both members of the "come in with nothing, leave the same way" club.
My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Peter Evans
Peter Evans
Posts: 3864
Joined: 20th Aug 2006
Location: UK
quotePosted at 17:24 on 26th March 2008
I believe I will go as I came too. My mother nearly gave birth to me on the toilet. Looks like I'm going out the same way, down the pan. He he.
My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Ron Brind
Ron Brind
Posts: 19052
Joined: 26th Oct 2003
Location: England
quotePosted at 18:51 on 26th March 2008
Heard it many times Peter, but that's funny....you do make me laugh!!
My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Harry E Wheeler
Harry E Wheeler
Posts: 171
Joined: 3rd Feb 2008
Location: Australia
quotePosted at 15:41 on 27th June 2008

Your article on Richard the Third is excellent, Cheri.  During the course of my research (within my Marie Stuart discussion Group) into historical events, Richard has been discussed many times. In particular, debate raged as to whether he suffered Porphyria - a condition it is thought (no definitive evidence - as with much of early history) - afflicted Marie S.

There was a similar occurrance which went something like this..."Builders, when renovating a part of Edinburgh Castle in the 19th (?my memory fails me) century discovered in a wall the remains of a child/ren thought to be those issued by Marie Stuart, and fathered by James Hepburn, 4th. earl of Bothwell..." This was considered false by many, and of course there were no means to precisely identify the remains.

 

Regards, Harry

 

My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Shirley K. Lawson
Shirley K. Lawson
Posts: 2310
Joined: 17th Jul 2008
Location: USA
quotePosted at 04:28 on 28th July 2008
On 22nd March 2008 01:22, Cheri Thomas wrote:

I know it sounds odd but I seem to have about 1000 pictures of England and the various groups, but none of myself.  I'll look through them and see if I can't find one to download.

Thanks to everyone for your input.  I still have to disagree with you though.  Please understand that every thing I say falls under the category of "From what I've read, my opinion is". 

Peter, I don't think he had a motive.  When he was crowned, the boys were "still alive" so if "being the king" could be listed as his motive, he was already "the king". He didn't need to kill the boys to be "the king" and the Titulus Regius had determined that the boys were illegitimate so they were really no threat to his crown.

Sue, I agree with you too that very little was done without the kings knowledge or consent but again, having already been crowned "what" was his motive? 

Buckingham was a pretty unscrupulous character.  It wasn't a case of someone running out of the tower yelling "Oh my God, the boys have disappeared"  It appears to be more a case of , after a period of time, no one simply "ever saw them again".  It took their mother 2 weeks to question where they were. Richard was 200 miles away during that summer.  Three days after the princes were last seen playing in the garden, Buckingham left London, and defected to the Lancaster side. Within 2 months, he accused Richard of their deaths and started his rebellion.  With both "opportunity" and "motive", I still vote for Buckingham.

 


Cheryl. I tend to agree with you as an genealogist I'm picking up "papers"of people that say pretty much the thing, I saw an Discovery or History Channel report one time that also says that, but the papers seem to indicate that if the"Lawson" prior were the Planagent family that I have two young boys here that came through the colonies with the help of an an "Olgaby" or "Oglathrope" family connection. The latter was one of the people concerning the "colony" of North Carolina also. I'll be looking at this as I go along though. Thing of it is, Richard if he was all that "cruel" would have had no qualms in simply killing these young boys out-right, considering the era this was in. If he had the power, whom would really stop him?...most likely no one. I know that I have much data with people surrounding the Lawson's that over here in the early colonial period say they were sent here and banished in England as "pretenders" to the crown but I honestly don't think it's that all of them might be incorrect. I am not sure if the records over there would be truthful, as most people involved would indeed cover their tracks in the truth, in something as important as this would be. At anyway, what's been done has been done. It would take me sitting down and talking with someone that knows an LOT about English history, written and not written in some ways.

My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Shirley K. Lawson
Shirley K. Lawson
Posts: 2310
Joined: 17th Jul 2008
Location: USA
quotePosted at 04:30 on 28th July 2008

Sorry..Cheri....I have no idea why I thought your name was "Cheryl" ...please forgive me.

My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Shirley K. Lawson
Shirley K. Lawson
Posts: 2310
Joined: 17th Jul 2008
Location: USA
quotePosted at 03:58 on 5th August 2008

I went back an re-read your article and it mentions Eleanor Butler, so that must be how they got Edward Larkin m. to an "Butler" it isn't on his chartwork here in the states...and I see only an possibilty of "billet" for Butler perhaps. I will have to tell you what I know someday, as people seemingly follow me around to see what they can pick up off me at times over here. Some like to change it faster that I can write it some days too!...laughs* 

My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Cheri ThomasPremier Member - Click for more info
Cheri Thomas
Posts: 70
Joined: 5th Mar 2006
Location: USA
quotePosted at 15:56 on 5th August 2008

Hi Shirley;

I'm so sorry that I haven't responded to your post.  I've had family visiting for the last two weeks and it's going to continue as my daughter is arriving today from S. Calif. to visit her brother who just returned from Thailand.  He's turning 40 next week so we're having a big celebration.  (Yikes!!, how can I possibly have 2 children in their 40's)  Mike has decided to return to Thailand to live and teach so this will be the last time we'll see him for a while.

I truly don't know much about the genealogy beyond the royal family so I can't help you with the Lawsons or their connection.  Sounds like you're doing just fine though.  Regarding Eleanor Butler, my information shows that Edward IV was "just" betrothed to her.  As far as I know, there was no union and no children, but I'm not a genealogist.  I'm quite sure you know much more about it than I do.

I know that there are many who disagree with me concerning Richard but feel that if we take all that we know (timelines, who was where at what time etc.) and consider all of the others involved in the disappearance of the boys, I still vote for Stafford.  It's just such a shame that Richard has been seen as such a villain.

If there is any way that I can help with your research, let me know.  You can contact me at uktours4u@volcano.net or give me a call at (209) 296-0957.

All the best..........Cheri

My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions
Ike Gibson
Ike Gibson
Posts: 2
Joined: 28th Apr 2006
Location: UK
quotePosted at 12:40 on 30th March 2009

Try reading Josephine Tey's  "The Daughter of Time".  Perfectly clear there that Richard III didn't murder the Princes - they weren't in his line of succession.  They were in Henry VII line and its pretty obvious that even if he didn't do it - he was responsible.  He besmirched the name of Richard III, and Shakespeare gave us the picture of him as 'hunchback'

( he wasn't !) to make sure he was siding with Henry VII.

 

My favourite: Pictures  |  Towns  |  Attractions