Primary Source Analysis

Primary Source: Dominic Mancini, The Usurpation of Richard III

Primary source passage:

“At his death Edward left two sons; he bequeathed the kingdom to Edward the

eldest. The king wished that his second son called the duke of York should be

content with his apanage within his brother’s realm. He also left behind daughters,

but they do not concern us. Men say that in the same will he appointed as Protector

of his children and realm his brother Richard duke of Gloucester, who shortly

afterwards destroyed Edward’s children and then claimed for himself the throne.”

Primary Source Analysis

The source analyzed here is a passage from The Usurpation of Richard III by Dominic Mancini,

an Italian cleric who was present in England during the political crisis following the death of

Edward IV in 1483. Mancini’s work is a short narrative account written shortly after Richard,

Duke of Gloucester, assumed the throne as Richard III. Although Mancini was in England at the

time, he was a foreign observer and did not have direct access to the English royal court. His

account was likely intended for a continental audience and reflects both his outsider status and

the uncertainty surrounding events at the English court.

The passage addresses the succession after Edward IV’s death and the disappearance of his two

sons, Edward V and Richard, Duke of York. Mancini reports that Edward IV intended his eldest

son to inherit the crown and expected his younger son to remain subordinate within his brother’s

realm. He then states that Richard of Gloucester was allegedly appointed Protector and “shortly

afterwards destroyed Edward’s children and then claimed for himself the throne.” Importantly,

Mancini introduces this claim with the phrase “men say,” which immediately signals that this

accusation is based on rumor rather than firsthand knowledge or documentary proof.

The tone of the passage is cautious but accusatory. Mancini does not present the murder of the

princes as an established fact, yet the inclusion of the rumor gives it narrative authority. The lack

of specific details regarding how, when, or by whom the princes were killed highlights the limits

of Mancini’s access to reliable information. This ambiguity reflects the political climate of 1483,

when the fate of the princes was unknown and public information was tightly controlled. Rather

than weakening the source, this uncertainty makes it especially valuable for understanding

contemporary perceptions. This uncertainty highlights how fragile political knowledge was

during moments of succession. Mancini’s account shows how quickly rumor could harden into

historical narrative when official records remained silent. In that sense, the source reveals as

much about the culture of power and information as it does about the event itself.

Reading the passage against the grain shows several underlying assumptions about power,

legitimacy, and gender. Mancini’s brief dismissal of Edward IV’s daughters with the statement

that “they do not concern us” unintentionally exposes late medieval attitudes toward female

succession. The exclusion of the daughters from political consideration underscores how royal

legitimacy was framed almost entirely through male lineage. This assumption helps explain why

the disappearance of the princes was politically destabilizing in a way that the existence of

female heirs was not.

The passage also shows how rumor functioned as a form of political knowledge in late medieval

England. Mancini’s reliance on what “men say” shows how information circulated through

speculation and repetition in the absence of official explanations. Silence itself becomes

meaningful, and the accusation against Richard gains power precisely because it cannot be

confirmed or denied. What the source unintentionally tells us is not simply what people believed,

but how belief shaped political reality during moments of crisis.

Additionally, Mancini’s wording reflects the instability of authority during the interregnum itself.

His inability to name specific actors or provide concrete evidence points to how information was

fragmented and controlled in late fifteenth-century England. The absence of official explanations

regarding the princes’ fate created a space where rumor could function as historical explanation.

This suggests that political power in this moment was exercised not only through action, but

through silence. The lack of clarity surrounding the princes’ disappearance may have been as

influential as any confirmed event in shaping public perception. As a result, the source reveals

how uncertainty itself became a tool within political discourse.

Modern historians have used Mancini’s account cautiously, treating it as evidence of early

suspicion rather than absolute proof of Richard III’s guilt. When compared with later Tudor

narratives, Mancini’s text represents an early stage in the construction of the princes’ story, one

marked by uncertainty rather than moral certainty. For this research project, the passage is useful

for tracing how rumor and ambiguity surrounding the princes’ disappearance developed into

more fixed narratives over time. It demonstrates the challenges of working with medieval

sources and highlights how historical narratives are shaped as much by silence and uncertainty as

by surviving evidence.