THE PRINCES IN THE TOWER
Victorians loved their history. Even more when it featured some of their favorite things, like tragic children or unspeakably evil villains, and British Royalty. The Princes in the Tower have it all.
But, of course, the Victorians told the story their own way.
We always hear that history is told by the winners, and that’s true…but it’s also told in the way the winners see their world at the moment. In the 19th century, especially, history was an “improving” thing, providing heroes and villains and lessons for the striving masses. The story of the young Edward V and his brother Prince Richard, sent to the Tower of London by their uncle Richard III, never to be seen again, was a favorite.
A little background, for those who haven’t watched all those historical fiction miniseries on the streaming channels:
In the second half of the 15th century, two aristocratic clans fought to rule Britain in what are known as the “Wars of the Roses,” for the flower badges of each family, white for York and red for Lancaster. By the 1480s, the House of York had won (for the moment) and Edward IV was king. Then he died suddenly, and his 12-year-old son Edward V acceded, only to be deposed by his uncle Richard III. Eventually, the Lancastrian Henry Tudor, vanquished Richard III and married Edward V’s sister Elizabeth.
Their son may be a little more familiar: Henry VIII.
Serial monogamy (or beheading) isn’t part of this story, though. Most 19th century historians treated Richard III as a ruthless, evil man who had his nephews killed to clear his path to the crown, then tyrannized the country until heroic Henry came to save them.
It might even have happened that way.
But maybe not, too.
Some modern historians argue Richard’s reason for deposing young Edward – a question about whether Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was legitimate – had some validity. There’s also the argument that in such a turbulent time, an adult king would be a better and safer ruler than a child under a regent. More, these folks will argue, Richard would not have had the boys killed because he was smart enough to know he would be blamed.
As indeed he was, and has been for the last several centuries.
From a 19th century standpoint, though, this one is easy. Tragic victim, vile villain, conquering hero. Some nice lessons about overreaching, and turning on your family…it’s all good.
Plus those two tragic kids. There’s a whole Victorian literature of brave little children facing sad ends. See Beth in Little Women, for starters. In a time before vaccines and antibiotics, any simple childhood illness could end in death, and everyone knew it. Tragic child figures provided a kind of acknowledgement and comfort to people at the time that we (thankfully) can’t imagine.
Add all of those factors together, and you get some very popular history. It’s no wonder that the historians and others trying to clear Richard III’s name have been fighting an uphill battle all of these years: the story is just too good.
More than good enough for an Ella Shane Opera Company production…especially since both Ella and her favorite singing partner, Marie de l’Artois get not one but two great roles: Ella as the older prince and conquering Henry Tudor, Marie as the younger boy and their vengeful mother Queen Elizabeth Woodville. Much drama ahead!
Got a #ThrowbackThursday idea? Drop it in the comments.
But, of course, the Victorians told the story their own way.
We always hear that history is told by the winners, and that’s true…but it’s also told in the way the winners see their world at the moment. In the 19th century, especially, history was an “improving” thing, providing heroes and villains and lessons for the striving masses. The story of the young Edward V and his brother Prince Richard, sent to the Tower of London by their uncle Richard III, never to be seen again, was a favorite.
A little background, for those who haven’t watched all those historical fiction miniseries on the streaming channels:
In the second half of the 15th century, two aristocratic clans fought to rule Britain in what are known as the “Wars of the Roses,” for the flower badges of each family, white for York and red for Lancaster. By the 1480s, the House of York had won (for the moment) and Edward IV was king. Then he died suddenly, and his 12-year-old son Edward V acceded, only to be deposed by his uncle Richard III. Eventually, the Lancastrian Henry Tudor, vanquished Richard III and married Edward V’s sister Elizabeth.
Their son may be a little more familiar: Henry VIII.
Serial monogamy (or beheading) isn’t part of this story, though. Most 19th century historians treated Richard III as a ruthless, evil man who had his nephews killed to clear his path to the crown, then tyrannized the country until heroic Henry came to save them.
It might even have happened that way.
But maybe not, too.
Some modern historians argue Richard’s reason for deposing young Edward – a question about whether Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was legitimate – had some validity. There’s also the argument that in such a turbulent time, an adult king would be a better and safer ruler than a child under a regent. More, these folks will argue, Richard would not have had the boys killed because he was smart enough to know he would be blamed.
As indeed he was, and has been for the last several centuries.
From a 19th century standpoint, though, this one is easy. Tragic victim, vile villain, conquering hero. Some nice lessons about overreaching, and turning on your family…it’s all good.
Plus those two tragic kids. There’s a whole Victorian literature of brave little children facing sad ends. See Beth in Little Women, for starters. In a time before vaccines and antibiotics, any simple childhood illness could end in death, and everyone knew it. Tragic child figures provided a kind of acknowledgement and comfort to people at the time that we (thankfully) can’t imagine.
Add all of those factors together, and you get some very popular history. It’s no wonder that the historians and others trying to clear Richard III’s name have been fighting an uphill battle all of these years: the story is just too good.
More than good enough for an Ella Shane Opera Company production…especially since both Ella and her favorite singing partner, Marie de l’Artois get not one but two great roles: Ella as the older prince and conquering Henry Tudor, Marie as the younger boy and their vengeful mother Queen Elizabeth Woodville. Much drama ahead!
Got a #ThrowbackThursday idea? Drop it in the comments.
No comments have been added yet.
