The prince was killed, who was it? There are many mysteries.
Over the past 150 years, Sir Thomas More's description of the "Prince in the Tower" case has raised many questions. Nevertheless, his History of King Richard III is significant because it provides a detailed historical context and attribution of responsibility for the succession crisis of 1483.
More's portrayal of these events is all the more striking because it involves people who are still alive at the time of writing, these survivors, and their immediate families.
The story of this case is set in the 1510s, and the central characters and their experiences, especially the possible surviving John Deaton, Edward and Miles, and what their connection to Moore is, are worth delvinging.
The story sheds light on the early decades of English history in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, and its impact on historiography and the nature of contemporary regime. In the 16th century, details about the circumstances of the prince's death came mainly from three **: Molint, Fabiyan and Virgil.
While these ** do not explicitly state that the confessions of Tyrell or others are their information**, an analysis of the available evidence suggests that these three claims may be interrelated.
The strongest evidence of this is pw.Hammond and Wj.White's view, they believe that rumors on the continent were caught by Molint and then transmitted back to London, and Fabian and Virgil also recorded this information separately.
However, it is also possible that the British story spread in the Low Countries and was then recorded in Valenciennes and London. In any case, this information provides us with valuable clues to understand this history.
More may have been exposed to Fabian and other accounts at the turn of the century, given Fabian's background in London law and business, or Virgil's work, both of whom had close ties to the court.
Therefore, it is difficult to ignore the possibility that Moore saw Fabian's work, which may have had an impact on his work. More's work may stem from the differing interpretations of the prince's death by Virgil and Fabiyan, as well as the accounts of the first two predecessors by those in the know represented by Molinette.
Although it is not possible to prove that these rumors existed before 1504, they have a certain commonality in London and elsewhere. However, just a few years later, More's History of King Richard III detailed the case, the people involved, and the orders issued, which was a dramatic turn.
In 1557, Richard III ordered John Glenn to meet Robert Brackenberry, a constable at the Tower of London, to kill the prince. Brackenbury refused, so Tyrell was chosen by the king to carry out the order.
However, Tyrell did not do it himself. Instead, he named Miles Forest "one of the four to keep them" and joined John Deaton.
Tyrell was imprisoned in the Tower of London for treason in 1502, during which time he was censored and confessed to the mumbles written by Mana Abue.
Although these confessions have not been mentioned in previous narratives, their content may have had an impact on rumors, which share some common characteristics that appear in their works.
Although Moore did not provide a confession directly, he noted: "Therefore, when I know that they know a lot of things, the two noble princes must lie." However, he did not provide more information about **, only to explain their fate: "Myers Forest rotted in St. Martens Persemele.
Deaton was in Dede, but he walked along the road and was most likely hanged by bees, while Tyrell himself, as he reminds the reader, was executed at Tower Hill in 1502. ”
The sequel to John Harding's Chronicles, published by Richard Grafton in 1543, and Edward Hall's The Two Leagues of Nobility and Illustrated Celebrities of Lancaster and York, published by Grafton in 1548, give a different account of Deayton's fate.
In that description, Deaton"Much later he was furious with Calis, equally dismissive, hateful and then pointed, and there was a great deal of pain. "Although this edition was printed earlier, its elements may represent revisions by later authors, and the reference to Deaton's fate may be an example of such revisions.
Hannum speculated that these revisions may have been made by Moore after the last months of 1527. If the 1557 text, as Rastle claims, was worked on by More from around 1513, and its first part lasted until about 1518, then it is clear that More was originally written at a time when he confidently believed that Deaton was still alive, at least thirty years after the prince's death.
However, in the course of his constant revisions, apparently in 1518 and at the end of 1527, he made changes to this.
Despite some inaccuracies, Moore's description of the prince** still raises questions about history and meaning. At the time of More's writing, the identity of Miles Forest is the most immediate and undisputed, as one of the heads of the prince and the caretaker of the wardrobe of Barnard Castle.
By marrying Anne, daughter of Richard, Earl of Warwick, the Forest eventually fell into Richard's hands. Although it is unclear whether this granting of guardianship occurred before the alleged **, Gairdner believes that the forest is one of the prince's guardians and murderers, which seems to enhance Moore's reliability.
However, if Moore's identification of the forest is justified, then at first glance it is not so impressive due to the fate of the forest.
Forrest's death in September 1484 seems to have coincided with that, during this period, the king provided his widow Joan and his son and heir, Edward, with an annual income of five marks.
In addition, there are other aspects of the forest that have attracted attention, and these discussions need to be based on the social context of the time, and only answers that correspond to this context are valuable.
Moore's reference to Miles "rotting in St. Martens, Persemail" alludes to the sanctuary death of St. Martin le Grande. The validity of the sanctuary of the College Church, a royal free church located north of St Paul's Church in the City of London, was even confirmed in the case of William Keim and Sir William Aldhall in 1451.
Whatever the reason, a small annuity for his widow and son may have been necessary, as Miles Forest found himself in a difficult situation at the time of his death, probably in the summer of 1484.
When studying John Deaton's identity, historians are often disappointed. Their research was limited to explicit printed records, but these records didn't provide much information about Deaton.
In fact, some records don't even explicitly state his name, but only mention an unspecified "Ayton". This restriction makes af.Pollard, in his historical research, had to ** the limitations of Deaton's identity.
This is very similar to the way the alleged identity of the ** has been studied over the past half century. Much of the research has taken a relatively subjective point of view, trying to prove that the names were chosen by Mohr at random, or at least so vague that Mohr could construct a story at will, regardless of their identity.
Paul Murray Kendall has described Moore's narrative as "heavily sprinkled with names," and in his criticism of his alleged "inaccurate and absurd" treatment of Brackenbury and Tyrell, he concluded that "there is no reason to think that Moore is more accurate or plausible in his use of minor figures like Grene, Forest, and Dighton, knowing little about them."
Clements Markham argues that although individuals can be identified, they cannot be held accountable for the crimes attributed to them. Other skeptics questioned the reliability of **'s confession.
In 1878, for example, there is no record that John Deaton was in the Tower of London at the time of his detention. In addition, Jeremy Porter also expressed surprise that Forrest was not convicted of any crime, that he apparently did not mention the date of Forrest's death, and that Deaton was "still alive."
For Porter, it was "such a surprising and superficial conclusion" that Moore had to add his views on the possibility that Deaton might be hanged.
Potter believed that he would not be allowed to be free when he was the king's **. He concluded that Deaton's real role was to serve as a witness, exposing a lie so obvious that it could not be safely made public.
Thus, from all angles, suspicion and caution predominate in Moore's description of the prince**.
At the time of More's writing, although the connection to the forest was not unscathed, the state of Miles' son, Edward, became a matter of concern. The appropriation for 1484 suggests that Edward may have been the son of Miles Forest.
Although neither Edward nor Miles' names are uncommon, their particular interest in Barnard Castle and the riding part of northern Yorkshire, as well as the coincidence of their names, hint at their identity.
In addition, Edward's first appearance as a groom at the funeral of the infant Prince Henry in February 1511 and his subsequent assignment to the service of the king's sister, Queen Margaret, Queen of Scots, provide further evidence of his identity.
In general, the question of Edward's state of existence and identity had already attracted attention at the time of More's writing.
Myers Forest benefited from a Yorkshire lease until July 1518, when a new lease was granted in Sheriff Hutton County, which also indicates that he maintained ties with the area that had previously served Richard of Gloucester.
This generosity increased further the following year, and Miles and Edward rented Sheriff Hutton's Sherburn estate in March. Edward was still listed as the bridegroom of the Chamber of Commerce when Henry met with the King of France at the Golden Cloth Yard in 1520, and Miles also became increasingly closely associated with Cardinal Thomas Wolsey at this time, sometimes referred to as his special servant, including when Wolsey's embassy came to Calais in 1521.
Miles became Walsey's companion in 1524, and Edward was chosen by the king as his groom in 1526 and received further funding to become marshals and lord of Barnard Castle in County Durham.
Edward was closely associated with Henry's relationship with Anne Boleyn, participating in an interactive conspiracy with Wolsey in 1528, and Miles switched to the king's service after the fall of Wolsey in 1529.
In the fall of 1531, he served as a messenger between Henry and James V of Scotland, receiving a grant that further cemented the brothers' influence around Barnard Castle.