Nearly Headless Nick…

[ricardienne]

kal. nov.

---

…Was 'murdered' in 1492. Which means by Henry VII.


Although the Perkin Warbeck thing didn't come to a head until 1495, it was in the works as early as 1491. NHN was very likely killed in conjunction with it, then, right? (Remember, no Statute of Secrecy until 1692 -- there might well have been a lot of interplay between the Muggle and Magical worlds before then)

Although pretty much everyone agrees that Perkin Warbeck was not actually who he claimed to be, there are certain schools of thought that hold that he was a front for the really son of Edward IV.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have solved the mystery of the Princes in the Tower, at least as far as the Potterverse is concerned.

Edward (V) was 13 at the time of his accession to the throne. His brother Richard was 10. They mysteriously disappeared within the next year, presumed murdered. We might hypothesize that one or both turned out to have magic and was sent off to Hogwarts. Richard would be the more obvious candidate, being (almost) the right age. That was in 1483-4. In 1490-1, seven years later, Perkin Warbeck surfaces. Coincidence? I think not.

To recapitulate, then. Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington was some sort of Yorkist who was executed by Henry VII for his involvement in a conspiracy to put Edward IV's son on the throne.

I always knew that a true Gryffindor would fight against Henry.

Comments

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

Richard Duke of York as in one of the tower princes. Richard III was never Duke of York (but his father, Richard, was), but Duke of Gloucester. (a prophecy, which says that 'G'
Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be.)

[voglia-di-notte.livejournal.com]

Ohhhh, right. I'd forgotten that. I guess I just got confused by the whole "Yorks vs. Lancastrians" thing and decided that Richard III was also the Duke of York. :P

And if Perkin Warbeck claimed to be the Duke of York, how do we know his name was Perkin Warbeck? *is curious*

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

Good question. But he wasn't the Duke of York, you see (though he may have been the front man for the actual Duke of York, depending on which pro-Richard (III) conspiracy theory you espouse).

[voglia-di-notte.livejournal.com]

But are we *sure* he wasn't the Duke of York? It was a long time ago. Many strange things are possible.

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

Fairly sure that the person who was captured claiming to be the Duke of York wasn't. He was the wrong age, for one thing. But I don't really know much about this, it's true.

[voglia-di-notte.livejournal.com]

Ah. The wrong age thing might be a bit of a tip-off, yes.