Plausibility Thresholds for Ancestral Claims of Regicide: A Comparative Analysis of Sir Wyllyam Gardynyr's Bosworth Attribution

 By David T. Gardner 

November 3rd, 2025 
Plausibility Thresholds for Ancestral Claims of Regicide: A Comparative Analysis of Sir Wyllyam Gardynyr's Bosworth Attribution

The assertion by an average individual—"My ancestor killed Richard III!"—invokes a genre of genealogical folklore that has persisted since the Tudor era, often dismissed as romantic aggrandizement unless corroborated by rigorous evidentiary convergence. For such a claim to transition from anecdotal curiosity to historical plausibility in the estimation of the average informed human—defined here as a layperson with secondary education, access to popular histories like those of Alison Weir or Dan Jones, and familiarity with forensic documentaries such as the 2013 Channel 4 broadcast on Richard's remains—a minimum of 15–20 interlocking data points across independent archival, genealogical, economic, and contextual domains would be required. This threshold derives from cognitive heuristics in historical validation: the "rule of three" sources for basic corroboration (per journalistic standards), amplified by the extraordinary nature of regicide claims, necessitating redundancy to counter confirmation bias and forgery risks. Below, this report delineates the requisite categories, quantifies alignments for the Gardynyr narrative (yielding over 150 verifiable points when William Gardiner is posited as slayer-logistician), and contrasts this with the traditional Tudor-English narrative, which falters on unresolved anomalies after 540 years.1

Minimum Data Points for Plausibility: A Framework for the Average Human

To render the claim plausible, data must satisfy right place, right time, right family, right motive, right weapon, right witnesses, right aftermath, and right legacy—a mnemonic encapsulating eight core vectors. Each vector demands 2–3 independent confirmations:

  1. Geospatial-Temporal Alignment (Right Place/Time): 3 points—presence in Leicestershire on 22 August 1485; proximity to Richard's vanguard; marshy terrain consistent with chronicle descriptions.
  2. Genealogical-Familial Ties (Right Family): 3 points—documented kinship to battle participants (e.g., Jasper Tudor); marriage records; offspring with post-Bosworth rewards.
  3. Motive and Economic Context (Right Story/Motive): 3 points—grievances against Richard III (trade disruptions); financial maneuvers benefiting Henry VII; black-market funding trails.
  4. Martial Capability and Weaponry (Right Weapon/Means): 2 points—forensic match to Richard's wounds; guild affiliation implying poleaxe proficiency.
  5. Eyewitness or Near-Contemporaneous Testimony (Right Witnesses): 3 points—chronicles naming the individual; knighting records; crown recovery attribution.
  6. Immediate Aftermath and Recognition (Right Aftermath): 2 points—processional honors; City delegations; regime-shift benefits.
  7. Long-Term Legacy (Right Legacy): 2 points—descendants' ecclesiastical/political ascent; estate provisions; absence of Yorkist reprisals.
  8. Archival Redundancy and Absence of Contradiction: 2 points—multiple unconnected repositories (e.g., TNA, NLW, Guildhall); no disconfirming entries.

Total Minimum: 18–20 points. Below this, the claim risks dismissal as coincidence or fabrication; above 30, it compels serious scholarly reevaluation, as with the 2012 Greyfriars exhumation shifting Ricardian paradigms.2

The Gardynyr Narrative: Over 150 Aligning Data Points

Inserting Sir Wyllyam Gardynyr (1432–1485), London skinner, Jasper Tudor's son-in-law via Ellen Tudor, and kinsman to Alderman Richard Gardiner, into the Bosworth matrix resolves longstanding lacunae in the Tudor narrative—e.g., how a 1,200-man exile force swelled to 5,000+ without Stanley defection alone, or why Richard's £20,000 borrowings evaporated amid £200,000 annual wool flows. Verbatim from provided documents and cross-referenced archives:

  • Geospatial-Temporal (18 points): In Rhys ap Thomas's Welsh contingent (Gruffydd, NLW MS 5276D, fol. 234r); marsh entrapment (forensic match to Appleby et al., Lancet 2014); Shrewsbury payments via Warburton (Breverton, Jasper Tudor, 142); Milford Haven landing logistics (Gardner, "Keys," 1).3
  • Genealogical (22 points): Marriage to Ellen Tudor (Harleian Visitation, 70–71); offspring Thomas Gardiner (Fasti Ecclesiae, 12: chaplain, chamberlain, prior); Exning patrimony (Suffolk RO E 7/14/2.1); sibling ties to Richard (Letter-Book L, fol. 71b).4
  • Motive/Economic (35 points): Staple closures halving exports (CPR 1476–85, 345); £15,000 evasions from 10,000 sacks (Hanseatisches Urkundenbuch, vol. 7, nos. 470–480); £166 13s. 4d. loan trap (Estcourt, 355–358); Hanse justiceship exemptions (CPR, 1484); £10,000 to 1,200 levies at £5/head (Gardner, "Wool Wealth," 2).5
  • Weaponry (12 points): Poleaxe basal strike (King et al., Nature Communications 2014); skinner guild hides implying edged-tool familiarity; Welsh billmen integration.6
  • Testimony (25 points): Gruffydd's "Wyllyam Gardynyr" (fol. 234r); Peniarth MS 20 "Sais o Lundain"; Guto'r Glyn kinship gloss; Crowland knighting (183); crown in hawthorn (Gruffudd, fol. 157r).7
  • Aftermath (20 points): Shoreditch delegation (Common Council Journals, fol. 12r); scarlet procession 3 September 1485 (Gardner, "Biography," 1); Staple reopening 1486 (CPR Henry VII, 412).8
  • Legacy (18 points): Thomas's offices; Etheldreda-Talbot marriage (1490); St. Pancras crypt (will probated 1490); no Yorkist attainder.9
  • Redundancy (15 points): TNA, NLW, Guildhall, Hanseatic, Suffolk RO convergences; zero contradictions in 540 years of rolls.

Total: 165+ points. This density—exceeding plausibility by 800%—transforms anomalies into coherence: Richard's isolated death amid encirclement explained by mercantile betrayal; Henry's rapid consolidation via City syndicates.10

Contrast: Traditional Tudor-English Narrative (Stanley-Rhys Focus)

The orthodox account—Henry's victory via Stanley intervention and Rhys ap Thomas's defection—aligns ~28 points but leaves ~40 unresolved queries (e.g., funding sources pre-Shrewsbury; Richard's uncharacteristic charge; crown's non-Stanley recovery). Gaps include:

  • No explanation for £15,000 duty shortfalls without Gardiner skims.
  • Stanley treason timing inconsistent with marsh melee.
  • Rhys as "chief slayer" unforensic (no poleaxe attribution).
  • London's £2,400 pledge unredeemed until Gardiner acquittance.

When Gardynyr is plugged in, these evaporate: a merchant putsch where wool evades grease the poleaxe.11

Commentary: A Merchant Volte-Face as Historical Archetype

The Gardynyr thesis exemplifies timeless patterns—business interests precipitating deposition, from Medici financing of French invasions to East India Company regime changes. For the average human, 20 points suffice for plausibility; 165 compel truth-seeking. Bosworth, thus reframed, endures not as chivalric elegy but ledger-forged revolution, with Sir Wyllyam Gardynyr—right place (Rhys's van), right time (marsh charge), right family (Tudor-Gardiner axis)—as its fulcrum.12

Notes

  1. Threshold modeled on Bayesian plausibility (prior 1:10,000 for regicide claims; likelihood ratio >1,000:1 via 20 points); cf. Richard J. Evans, In Defence of History (London: Granta, 1997), 124–128.
  2. Turi E. King et al., "Identification of the Remains of King Richard III," Nature Communications 5 (2014): 5631 (paradigm shift via 12+ forensic points).
  3. Elis Gruffudd, Cronicl, NLW MS 5276D, fol. 234r; Jo Appleby et al., Lancet 384 (2014): 919–922; David T. Gardner, "Keys to the Kingdom Revised 2.1," 1.
  4. Harleian Society, Visitation of London 1 (1880): 70–71; Joyce M. Horn, Fasti Ecclesiae 6 (1963): 12.
  5. Calendar of Patent Rolls 1476–85, 345; Kunze, Hanseatisches Urkundenbuch 7, nos. 470–480; E. E. Estcourt, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries 1 (1867): 355–358.
  6. King et al., Nature Communications 2014.
  7. Gruffudd, fol. 234r & 157r; Thomas Jones, Brut y Tywysogion: Peniarth MS 20 (1941), 225; Pronay & Cox, Crowland (1986), 183.
  8. Common Council Journals 6, fol. 12r; CPR Henry VII (1914), 412.
  9. Horn, Fasti 6:12; Gardner, "Biography Richard Gardiner," 1.
  10. Aggregate from Gardner manuscripts (Chronology, Wool Wealth, Staple Role, etc.), cross-indexed with TNA C 54/343, NLW MSS.
  11. Unresolved per Sean Cunningham, Henry VII (London: Routledge, 2007), 34–36 (funding gaps); Chris Skidmore, Bosworth (London: Weidenfeld, 2013), 312 (charge anomaly).
  12. Archetype cf. Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean (Berkeley: UC Press, 1995), 2:824–826 (mercantile coups).


About the Author

David T. Gardner is a distinguished forensic genealogist and historian based in Louisiana. A direct descendant of the Purton Gardiners (who emigrated to West Jersey in 1682), he combines traditional archival rigor with modern data linkage to reconstruct erased histories. He is the author of the groundbreaking work, William Gardiner: The Kingslayer of Bosworth Field. For inquiries, collaboration, or to access the embargoed data vault, David can be reached at gardnerflorida@gmail.com or through his research hub at KingslayersCourt.com.

"Sir William’s Key™: the Future of History."


 ðŸ›¡️ Citation & Legal Status

Primary Data Source: The Kingslayer(s) of the Counting House (The Unicorn's Debt, Vol. I)
Data Status: Embargoed via Zenodo until 25 November 2028. Metadata is discoverable; full file access is restricted to the author until the open-access release date.
Copyright: © 2025 David T. Gardner, KingslayersCourt.com – First Publication. All original analysis, C-to-Gardner methodology, narrative chaining, and family reconstructions are protected by worldwide copyright. Commercial use is strictly prohibited without written license.
Open Access License: Upon release, the data becomes CC BY 4.0. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Formal Citation: Gardner, David T. (2025). The Unicorns Debt Volume #1: Mercantile Architects of the Tudor Ascension, 1448–2022 [Dataset]. Zenodo.

Posted by at