The Daughter Of Time

Mushafau Ade Kukoyi
History 1382
Professor Sundberg
02-06-06

The Daughter Of Time

It is interesting to note that Grant begins to investigate the mystery of the princes' death with the help of a young researcher, He does so by starting from scratch, disregarding the "rumor" of general sources that merely repeat what others have said, and looking directly at the "evidence" to be found in laws, letters, and account books. When the "testimony" of a witness is presented in the form of a chronicle, he questions the motives of its author and checks the information, as best as he can, against what is and is not known as fact.

Based on the pool of compelling evidence before me, I am more than convinced that Richard III had nothing to do with the sudden death of his nephews. Thus proving Richard’s innocence.

In the first instance, most of the historic accounts on the personality of Richard III were bias to a fault. The theory that Richard hated his brother because of the sharp contrast between his beauty and Richard’s hunchbacked state or his withered arm was certainly a myth. In some cases he was harshly described as the young and patient small brother who had turned into a monster. Furthermore, the history books had portray Richard as the prince who usurped the throne on his brother’s death in place of the boy heir and arranged the death of his nephews. It was widely believed that while he was away from London, the boys had simply disappeared. The concept suggested that Richard sent someone (Sir James Tyrrel) to do the deed simply to secure his hold to the throne.

Secondly, the fact that Thomas More was Henry VIII’s Chancellor, proves that he could not have live through the whole of Henry VII’s reign as well as Richard III. Moreover he was barely 8 years old when Richard died at Bosworth, confirming that he was not a true eyewitness, but was simply reporting an old gossip or the account of a third party by the name of John Morton that happens to be HenryVII’s Archbishop of Canterbury (Richard’s bitterest enemy). Furthermore, the evidence confirms that More had never Known Richard III at all. Even though this accounts was referred to as the Bible of the whole history world on the subject of Richard III. Furthermore, More’s stewardship to the Tudor clearly indicates conflict of interest.

Thirdly, even though Henry brought a Bill of Attainder against Richard after Bosworth before the Parliament accusing him of cruelty and tyranny, he fail to mention the murder of the princes in the Tower. This I believe was due to the fact that the boys were still alive when Henry took over the Tower.
However, the confession of Stillington to the council, that he had married Edward IV to lady Eleanor Buter before his later marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was crucial evidence that nullify the legitimacy of Richard’s nephews to the throne without suggesting any fowl play on the side of Richard. The parliament simply accepted the evidence and incorporated it into an Act called Titulus Regius, which gave Richard the right to the throne.

Also, the surest evidence that Eleanor Butler’s story was true, lay in Henry VII’s urgent need to destroy it. However, if it were false, then all he had to do to discredit Richard was to bring it into the open and make Stillington eat his words. Instead he hushed it. Again, Henry VII had to repeal the Titulus Regius in order to make Elizabeth legitimate since he plans to married her thus, making the children legitimate and automatically making the two boys heir to the throne before her makes them a treat to him.

Henry realized that Eleanor Butler had truly married Edward, and the children really were illegitimate. And since the children were illegitimate, by the way, then no one could rise in their favor and they were certainly of no danger to Richard. This confirms that the boys were alive and well when Henry took over the Tower on his arrival from London. Furthermore, there was nothing that would explain his omission to make a scandal of it if the boys were missing and no one at that time ever suggested otherwise.
Furthermore, Tyrrel did not confess to the murder of the two boys. He was executed by Henry in a dungeon in the Tower and was beheaded in great haste and without trail on May 6, 1502, 17 years after the alleged murder of the boys. However, Henry did not publish a confession, but rather paid an historian, Polydore Virgil, who gave an account of how the murder was done after Tyrrel was dead. In fact, Tyrrel would have been tried and executed for the boy’s murder, openly, in 1485. Henry executed Tyrrel in 1502, and announced by way of his tame historian that Tyrrel had confessed that twenty years before he had murdered the princes.
Again, Edward’s children lived happily and were all well cared for by king Richard and were even paid pensions. Richard also appointed George’s son his heir when his own son died.

Although, Grant got a telegram from Brent containing details of his finding about the chronicle in Latin written by the monk at Croyland, confirming the rumor that the boys’ death was written before Richard’s death. He later realized that the location of the source (croyland, Fen country near Ely) was where Morton was hiding out after his escape from Buckinham’s charge. This revelation was credited to a French chancellor in a speech to the State-General at Tour. The French Regency sent an embassy to Richard six month later probably after they found out that the rumor was false. In which Richard signed a safe-conduct for their visit.

Morton was at the heart of the conspiracy to murder Richard before he could be crowned. In fact he and a friend of his called Christopher Urswick worked like beavers in Henry’s interest; sending preuie letters and cloked messages to England to stir up hostility against Richard. Morton taught that if he could help Henry Tudor to a throne then he might still be able to lay hand on the position of the archbishop of Canterbury or even the Cardinal. This made it overwhelmingly important to Morton that Richard should not have the government of England.

The strongest and most crucial factor that made the British society believed that Richard III actually killed his two nephews was based on the fact that it was generally recorded in their history books and confirmed in the “History of Richard III” written by the most renowned historian of their time in person of Sir Thomas More. Moreover it was a general believed that it is bad manner to contradict Sir Thomas More. Furthermore, it was also recorded that Sir James Tyrrel, who carried out the execution actually confessed killing the boys and was later sentenced to death by hanging. Some even suggested that the skeletons found under the stairs in Charles II’s days were the remains of the two boys and had been buried.
Furthermore, the unfortunate lose of his only son and the subsequent death of his wife about the same time shortly after the death of the boys seems like retribution or was believed to be an act of divine justice.

Truly, the concept of “Tonypandy” equally exists in the United States and in fact around the world. A typical example is the over exaggeration of the dramatic rescuer of the “POW” during the Iraqi war. The impression created by the American media was more like a Hollywood picture. Claiming that the Iraqi army was heavily armed and that there was a large casualty due to resistant from the Iraqi army. The story concluded that it took the braveness and courageous effort of a tactical team of US army to over power the Iraqi military. The British media later disproved this even though millions of American viewer still believes the act truly took place at such magnitude.