Grand unified books thread

[Sheilbh]

The Bounless Sea by David Abulafia won

[The Brain]

Richard III: Loyalty Binds Me, by Lewis. A modern take on Richard, with the advantage of the discovery of his remains. Author is a self-confessed Ricardian. Isn't obviously unreasonable (but of course I'm not an expert on the sources etc), even if I don't agree with every argument. I think it would have been helpful to discuss a bit more the possible scenarios for what happened to the princes in the Tower, just to clarify what the options are and how likely or unlikely the author thinks they are and why.

[The Brain]

The whole notion of Ricardians strikes me as weird. Why are people worried about the morality of a Renaissance monarch? I mean, if he killed the princes in the Tower, would that make any actual difference to how one thinks about him? Murdering off rivals to the throne was hardly uncommon at the time, certainly the Tudors did it often enough.

Murdering your own underage nephews is a bit extreme even for the times. Even if many rivals were killed during the Wars of the Roses, it was often in battle or openly by kangaroo court post-battle. Edward may have killed a brother but Clarence was executed according to law. As I understand it even the killing of Henry VI may have been legal if Edward/Richard bothered with the necessary formalities, which we don't know if they did, and even if it was murder Henry VI was a grown man and not a child. And of course what the Tudors did was (mostly) after the WotR.

[Malthus]

The whole notion of Ricardians strikes me as weird. Why are people worried about the morality of a Renaissance monarch? I mean, if he killed the princes in the Tower, would that make any actual difference to how one thinks about him? Murdering off rivals to the throne was hardly uncommon at the time, certainly the Tudors did it often enough.

Murdering your own underage nephews is a bit extreme even for the times. Even if many rivals were killed during the Wars of the Roses, it was often in battle or openly by kangaroo court post-battle. Edward may have killed a brother but Clarence was executed according to law. As I understand it even the killing of Henry VI may have been legal if Edward/Richard bothered with the necessary formalities, which we don't know if they did, and even if it was murder Henry VI was a grown man and not a child. And of course what the Tudors did was (mostly) after the WotR.

Yes, but it was mainly the Tudors who were interested in spreading the news that Richard was an inconvenient heir murderer, to bolster their own dynasty's somewhat dubious claim to the throne - point being that they themselves did quite a bit of potential-rival-murdering.

Seems the sort of thing that monarchs did a lot of at the time - while no doubt horrible, it certainly was not unusual. The Tudors shitting on Richard's name is the pot calling the kettle black, but there is no particular surprise if the kettle is indeed black ...

[Valmy]

Which Tudor killed their immediate family members? Was killing the legal king who is that closely related, especially as a minor, really that common?

I cannot think of too many examples, in France and England anyway. Examples please.

[Malthus]

Which Tudor killed their immediate family members? Was killing the legal king who is that closely related, especially as a minor, really that common?

I cannot think of too many examples, in France and England anyway. Examples please.

Nephew isn't an immediate family member though.

For parallels to killing off close relations that could assume the throne, Lady Jane Grey, 16 year old  first cousin, springs to mind.

Also, consider the sad fate of the Earl of Warwick:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Plantagenet,_17th_Earl_of_Warwick

Practically the first thing the new king Henry VII did, was pack the 10 year old kid off to the tower ... where he was imprisoned in such isolation he was said to have gone insane. Though admittedly, he wasn't executed until he was 24.

[The Minsky Moment]

Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI all killed off in about 100 year period.

[The Minsky Moment]

Being King of England in the late middle ages was a dangerous job.

[The Minsky Moment]

As for France, guess it depends how much you believe the Druon version of that history.

[Syt]

Being King of England in the late middle ages was a dangerous job.

That's why so few of them are alive today.

[The Brain]

The whole notion of Ricardians strikes me as weird. Why are people worried about the morality of a Renaissance monarch? I mean, if he killed the princes in the Tower, would that make any actual difference to how one thinks about him? Murdering off rivals to the throne was hardly uncommon at the time, certainly the Tudors did it often enough.

Murdering your own underage nephews is a bit extreme even for the times. Even if many rivals were killed during the Wars of the Roses, it was often in battle or openly by kangaroo court post-battle. Edward may have killed a brother but Clarence was executed according to law. As I understand it even the killing of Henry VI may have been legal if Edward/Richard bothered with the necessary formalities, which we don't know if they did, and even if it was murder Henry VI was a grown man and not a child. And of course what the Tudors did was (mostly) after the WotR.

Yes, but it was mainly the Tudors who were interested in spreading the news that Richard was an inconvenient heir murderer, to bolster their own dynasty's somewhat dubious claim to the throne - point being that they themselves did quite a bit of potential-rival-murdering.

Seems the sort of thing that monarchs did a lot of at the time - while no doubt horrible, it certainly was not unusual. The Tudors shitting on Richard's name is the pot calling the kettle black, but there is no particular surprise if the kettle is indeed black ...

My impression is that murdering children, especially as closely related as nephews, was in fact unusual during the period. Potentially problematic children, for instance children of executed traitors, were typically not physically harmed. Richard of York had not been harmed after his father was executed by Henry V, and was allowed to inherit his father. The children of Clarence were not harmed after his execution (harm did come, decades later). Elizabeth of York (sister of the princes) was not harmed even though active traitor (not a value judgement) Henry Tudor was planning to marry her to add the York legitimacy to his own claim. Child kings Richard II and Henry VI were not harmed until they had reigned as adults for many years and had made enemies as adults.

Even for enemy adults the assassin's knife doesn't appear to have been that common a tool during the WotR.

[Valmy]

Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI all killed off in about 100 year period.

Well yeah that is true. Especially with that whole civil war for the throne going on.

I should point out that Richard II triggered his downfall by executing his brothers.

[The Minsky Moment]

I should point out that Richard II triggered his downfall by executing his brothers.

Yes I've skipped over the murder, execution and mutilation of large numbers of princes, royal dukes,  regents and pretenders during that same time period for the sake of brevity and focused just on the top job.

[Valmy]

I should point out that Richard II triggered his downfall by executing his brothers.

Yes I've skipped over the murder, execution and mutilation of large numbers of princes, royal dukes,  regents and pretenders during that same time period for the sake of brevity and focused just on the top job.

I never said otherwise. I was just trying to explain why the deaths of the princes in the tower, or Ivan the Terrible's savage beating to death of his completely innocent son, were considered going over a line in an era where butchering your rivals was common.

[The Brain]

I mean one would think that uncles killing their nieces and nephews or brothers taking out their older brothers would be a very common occurance in this era but for whatever reason it wasn't. I mean it isn't like it never happened but it was frowned upon in a way that arbitrarily executing the Duke of Buckingham wasn't.

The Duke of Clarence was the bro of the dad of the murdered nephews ... what happened to him?

Oh yeah, he was executed (privately) for attempting to usurp his brother.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Plantagenet,_1st_Duke_of_Clarence

Seems that, in this family, murder of close relations, judicial or otherwise, did indeed happen with distressing frequency!

Edit: two of his kids were also executed by the Tudors at various times ...

Clarence had earlier been in open rebellion against his brother and been forgiven. I think it's likely that he wasn't innocent in 1478. He certainly was into judicial murder, but more in the perpetrating role AFAIK. I don't think it's necessarily correct to read any ill intent into Edward sparing his brother a public execution.