Perkin Warbeck remains an enigma. Without any ultimate proof of his true identity, I can’t take one side or the other, because I’m really not sure. But I do lean toward believing he really was Richard of Shrewsbury, the younger of the “Princes in the Tower”.
This article—https://tinyurl.com/y8c95suy—is all about him, but in a few places there’s a glimmer of finger-pointing at Richard III. Not really out-and-out accusations, just vague hints, e.g. about Richard III having locked his nephews away, never to be seen again. The inference being that he’d thrown away the key.
There’s also Warbeck’s own statement that Richard had killed his older brother but allowed Warbeck himself to live because of his youth and innocence. If Richard was indeed the original wicked uncle, to my mind it would be daft for him to kill one nephew but leave the other to live. Any evil usurper wanting to be rid of a threat would dispose of both boys. Why on earth leave the other to cause mayhem in the future? As Perkin did for Henry VII. Mind you, the Tudor tyrant richly deserved to have his life made miserable by a guilty conscience that had him glancing over his shoulder until the day he turned up his toes..
But on the whole the article is fair. For instance it states that Parliament decided Edward IV’s marriage was illegal and then invited Richard to take the throne.
It’s well worth a read. I won’t go into more detail here, because it’s better to simply cast an eye over it yourselves.
be viscountessw
The New Murrey and Blue blog 
Leave a reply to Christine Kutlar-kreutz Cancel reply