In college, I had two British history courses taught by a wonderful lecturer. He read all of his lectures, but did so as a storyteller. It can be hard for others to grasp this concept--yes, history can be fun. No, really! Thank you, Prof. Von den Steinen, Prof. Garosi, and Mr. English (freshman year of high school) for making me love history.
Back to the Sceptered Isle. I spent the first half of my third year of college in London, and I've been fascinated with England ever since. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the awful things the English did to the Irish (too lengthy to list here). Truly, truly awful. Even in light of that, there's something about kings, princes, queens, knights, and lords that I find really interesting. Perhaps it's that such a world is so different in comparison to 21st century America; perhaps it's some innocent but misguided nostalgia for times that weren't really all that great to live in.
One of the topics of debate in the field of English history is the story of the Princes in the Tower. A brief recap of what led to their tragic deaths: Henry V died in France in 1422, leaving his infant son as king. Henry VI was generally regarded by historians as a weak king and an unsuccessful military campaigner (unlike his father, the hero of Agincourt). That weakness led to a struggle for the throne, known as the War of the Roses. The House of Lancaster fought to keep its hold on the throne against the House of York--and did so successfully until 1461. Edward IV (of the Yorkists) gained the throne in 1461 and reigned until his untimely death in 1483. There was a brief interruption when the Lancastrians gained the throne in 1470, but the Yorkists soon won it back. Edward IV had two sons, and his eldest, Edward V, succeeded him as king in 1483. Edward IV's brother, Richard, didn't allow that for very long. Richard deposed Edward V, claiming him to be a bastard; Richard was so powerful that he forced his way onto the throne in 1483, becoming Richard III. Richard lost his crown to Henry Tudor (who became Henry VII) when he died in battle on Bosworth field in 1485.
The Princes in the Tower were Edward V (age 12 at the time of his death) and his younger brother Richard (age 9); both sons of Edward IV. Each had a more legitimate claim to the throne than Richard III. As any casual reader of history knows, no throne is safe when powerful lords and claimants to the throne are mixed together. Richard was a cunning politician and knew this well; it wouldn't be a matter of if, but when someone tried to restore Edward V to the throne.
After being imprisoned in the Tower of London, the two boys disappeared, rather conveniently. It's a historical whodunnit that's over 500 years old! Shakespeare penned his famous play on Richard III, using some historical sources but also indulging in the dramatic. From that play, we have the picture of Richard as the villainous, evil, hunchback uncle who had his nephews murdered.
Historians have taken both sides--those that defend and those that prosecute Richard. Both sides make their case using the sources of the day. But who is right?
I picked up a book from Prof. Von den Steinen's class, one that I never read (oops). The Daughter of Time, by Josephine Tey, was a mystery novel published in 1951. Inspector Alan Grant, laid up in a hospital due to injuries on the job, starts investigating the case of Richard III and the Princes in the Tower. He enlists the aid of a grad student working at the British Museum; together they piece together all the historical evidence they can. In the end, they exonerate Richard III of the murders and place the blood on the hands of Henry VII.
I'm guessing that it was from my days in college--my parents gave me Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower. Josephine Tey, whatever her sleuthing acumen might have been, was not a historian. I was really interested to read a historian's take on the Princes. Weir laid out the background to the Wars of the Roses, describes the key characters, the story, and arrives at the conclusion that Richard III arranged to have his nephews killed.
I may not have convinced you to read those books (both were very entertaining) (and yes, a history book can be entertaining!!!), but hopefully the catchy title of this post convinced you to read this far. I couldn't help but read the story of all those Richards and Edwards and see the failure of the Church.
Free will makes it impossible for the Church to prevent each one of its members from falling into sin. However, where was the voice of the clergy during that time in England, warning of the consequences of sin? Clearly the monarchs played by a different set of rules. These weren't the kinds of sin where we semi-unintentionally fall into it, or the kind of sin that we try our hardest to avoid but can't. The following list were things planned for, plotted for, and done intentionally during the Wars of the Roses:
-the ineptitude of Henry VI gave rise to greed for the throne, which led to war
-Edward IV was a model of infidelity, and his lust caused him to marry a commoner, Elizabeth Wydville. Weir cited suggestions that Elizabeth wouldn't give into him unless they were married; there isn't enough evidence to prove this. It does give a reasonable explanation to why a king married one of his subjects for only the second time in 400 years (=more than an uncommon occurrence)--lust is a powerful demon. Just so we're clear, the sin part was the lust, not the marrying a commoner part. But regarding the latter, Edward displayed a stunning level of foolishness by doing so... doing what was good for his pants rather than thinking of what was good for the realm...
-...that surprise marriage fractured the relationship between Edward IV and his powerful uncle, the Earl of Warwick. Warwick then conspired with Edward's brother, George, to overthrow Edward...
-...the plot failed, and George was executed as a result. Parliament recommended the execution and Edward IV signed off. The future Richard III held the Wydeville family responsible for pushing George's execution through Parliament, and treated the family accordingly
-upon Edward IV's death, his son, Edward V, technically took the throne... until Richard's avarice for the crown declared all children of Edward & Elizabeth to be illegitimate
-Richard had some of his strongest supporters killed, for political expediency
-the two male heirs of Edward IV (Edward V and little Richard), ages 12 and 9, were murdered
-Richard somehow seduced his niece into an incestuous affair. Believe it or not, the sister of the two Princes in the Tower... whom Richard most likely had murdered.
And that's a shortened list. I know from my own experience as a sinner: terrible things result when we usher sin into our lives and families. All the lust, greed, murder, and war for decades settled into England. How can that not have its own spiritual consequences? Look what resulted from a century of bloodshed, greed, adultery, and fratricide: the Tudor dynasty! More of the same bloodshed, adultery, and greed. By the time Henry Tudor (Henry VII) came along, someone with a tenuous claim to the throne, the English ached for royal stability and were excited to have anyone on the throne other than Richard III. The Tudors took turns in schism, ripping England away from the Roman Catholic Church (Henry VIII), taking it further away (Edward VI, Henry's only legitimate son that lived beyond infancy), bringing England back to Rome (Queen Mary), and breaking away from Rome again (Queen Elizabeth), for good.
Is it any wonder that nations undergo trials when their leaders do terrible things? When sin begets further sin? England enjoyed many centuries of prosperity later, but now, like the rest of formerly Christian Europe, has continued to distance itself from Jesus, the source of all life. The problem with doing that is that God respects our free will--and lets us have what we want.
"Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death." (James 1:14-15)
