Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think Richard III clearly murdered the princes in the tower?

317 replies

Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 06/05/2024 19:50

It seems quite clear to me that Richard III betrayed his nephews, murdered them and usurped their crown.

Whenever I see discussions about it on social media or wherever, people always come on and try to claim he’s a misrepresented soul who’d never have done that. If you’re someone who believes him innocent, what do you think happened to the princes?

Would also be very interested if anyone knowledgeable knows what contemporary sources were saying at the time. What did the public think had happened to their King (Edward V)?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
6
CurlewKate · 24/07/2025 15:51

BMW6 · 07/05/2024 22:15

I often think if there is life after death we'll be privy to the truth...... so that's something to look forward to 🤔🙂

Did you hear about the man who got the the Pearly Gates and Peter says “You can ask one question and I’ll tell you the truth” The man asks “Who killed JFK?” Peter says “Lee Harvey Oswald” The man says “Wow-it goes THIS high!”

CurlewKate · 24/07/2025 15:41

Madcats · 06/05/2024 20:20

The Josephine Tey book is lovely, albeit fictional. If nothing else, you can scratch your head about patients smoking in a hospital ward.

I think I bought some of her other books in a bundle on Audible for not much money.

And nurses sending telegrams for patients….

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 06/06/2024 06:42

I’ve always been interested in Katherine Sanford ever since reading Seton’s book 40+ years ago!

WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout · 06/06/2024 06:38

Wonkypictureframe · 03/06/2024 17:47

I don’t believe so, although over time she has turned into a bit of an industry. But the Katherine Swynford book tries to bend the very slender amount of documented history to fit the events of the novel, and is very odd. A much better book covering the life of Katherine Swynford was published around the same time which I would recommend over it.
https://www.waterstones.com/book/katherine-swynford/jeannette-lucraft/9780752455976

Thank you will see if on kindle!

GentlemanJohnny · 03/06/2024 20:30

I agree totally. The "evidence" that he was not involved is highly doubtful (to put it charitably) and I know of no serious Medieval historian who believes he did not order the boys' deaths.

Having said that, I also think that if he had won Bosworth he would have turned out to be a far better King than Henry VII did.

EmpressaurusOfCats · 03/06/2024 20:26

Wonkypictureframe · 03/06/2024 17:47

I don’t believe so, although over time she has turned into a bit of an industry. But the Katherine Swynford book tries to bend the very slender amount of documented history to fit the events of the novel, and is very odd. A much better book covering the life of Katherine Swynford was published around the same time which I would recommend over it.
https://www.waterstones.com/book/katherine-swynford/jeannette-lucraft/9780752455976

Great, I’ll have to get that.

Original poster
Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 03/06/2024 19:30

moonshinepoursthroughmywindow · 03/06/2024 18:24

I think he probably didn't, but we can never know for sure unless some new contemporary writing by someone very close to the main players comes to light.

He had already taken over from Edward on the grounds that Edward was illegitimate (which may or may not have been true, but he had the word of a bishop, and people seem to have accepted it at the time).

Henry, on the other hand, was trying to strengthen his claim to the throne by marrying Elizabeth of York, which would only really work if she was legitimate. But if she was legitimate, so would her brothers have been. He needed them to be legitimate, but no longer around. And he needed to shift the blame for whatever happened to them to someone who was no longer around to defend himself. As far as I'm aware, nobody accused Richard of having done anything to them during his lifetime - it was assumed that they were alive and just being kept out of the public eye.

I think it's possible that Edward died of natural causes at some point during his seclusion - there are records of him having had visits from a doctor. As for the younger Richard, if anyone killed him I think it was almost certainly someone acting on behalf of Henry.

People did accuse Richard during his lifetime. Rumours that he’d killed them were rife. He lost support because of it. Henry VII gained support because of it.

If Richard III could have produced the princes, he would have. He might not have lost the Battle of Bosworth if he’d been able to produce the princes alive and well.

OP posts:
moonshinepoursthroughmywindow · 03/06/2024 18:24

I think he probably didn't, but we can never know for sure unless some new contemporary writing by someone very close to the main players comes to light.

He had already taken over from Edward on the grounds that Edward was illegitimate (which may or may not have been true, but he had the word of a bishop, and people seem to have accepted it at the time).

Henry, on the other hand, was trying to strengthen his claim to the throne by marrying Elizabeth of York, which would only really work if she was legitimate. But if she was legitimate, so would her brothers have been. He needed them to be legitimate, but no longer around. And he needed to shift the blame for whatever happened to them to someone who was no longer around to defend himself. As far as I'm aware, nobody accused Richard of having done anything to them during his lifetime - it was assumed that they were alive and just being kept out of the public eye.

I think it's possible that Edward died of natural causes at some point during his seclusion - there are records of him having had visits from a doctor. As for the younger Richard, if anyone killed him I think it was almost certainly someone acting on behalf of Henry.

Wonkypictureframe · 03/06/2024 18:14

I think the blurring that occurs when a historian is also publishing fiction is unhelpful.

NonPlayerCharacter · 03/06/2024 17:51

EmpressaurusOfCats · 03/06/2024 17:20

Hm. Are all of Alison Weir’s books shoddy history?

Show quote history

The novel about Anne of Cleves is a bit loco. Had a secret child by her true love, Henry rejected her because he could tell she'd had a baby...

Wonkypictureframe · 03/06/2024 17:47

I don’t believe so, although over time she has turned into a bit of an industry. But the Katherine Swynford book tries to bend the very slender amount of documented history to fit the events of the novel, and is very odd. A much better book covering the life of Katherine Swynford was published around the same time which I would recommend over it.
https://www.waterstones.com/book/katherine-swynford/jeannette-lucraft/9780752455976

EmpressaurusOfCats · 03/06/2024 17:20

Wonkypictureframe · 03/06/2024 16:03

Alison Weir’s book on Katherine Swynford is shoddy history. You’re better off just reading Katherine and knowing it’s fiction.

Show quote history

Hm. Are all of Alison Weir’s books shoddy history?

Wonkypictureframe · 03/06/2024 16:03

EmpressaurusOfCats · 02/06/2024 15:49

I’ve just finished listening to Queens of the Conquest by Alison Weir, which starts with Matilda, the wife of William the Conqueror (they nearly all seem to have been called Matilda) & goes through to the first Plantagenets.

Before that I listened to her book on Katherine Swynford, mother of the first Beauforts. Both really interesting, both for themselves and as a prequel of sorts to what came later.

Alison Weir’s book on Katherine Swynford is shoddy history. You’re better off just reading Katherine and knowing it’s fiction.

NonPlayerCharacter · 03/06/2024 15:56

BMW6 · 03/06/2024 15:46

What makes you think he didn't have an investigation? Henry VII had all Richards records destroyed from my readings.

There's nothing to refer to - only rumours and heresay during the Tudor reign.

You'd think Henry VII would have had an investigation since his wife is the sister of the missing boys, if Richard were the prime suspect (and couldn't defend himself as he's dead and all his written records destroyed)..........

I confess, Wikipedia.

"Richard also failed to open any investigation into the matter, which would have been in his interest if he was not responsible for the deaths of his nephews."

Princes in the Tower - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower

BMW6 · 03/06/2024 15:46

What makes you think he didn't have an investigation? Henry VII had all Richards records destroyed from my readings.

There's nothing to refer to - only rumours and heresay during the Tudor reign.

You'd think Henry VII would have had an investigation since his wife is the sister of the missing boys, if Richard were the prime suspect (and couldn't defend himself as he's dead and all his written records destroyed)..........

NonPlayerCharacter · 03/06/2024 15:14

Why didn't he open an investigation?

Clawdy · 03/06/2024 15:06

And I still can't understand how anyone can think he did murder them!! Everyone has different views.

Original poster
Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 03/06/2024 14:49

I still don’t understand how anyone can think Richard III didn’t murder them.

He couldn’t produce them when it would’ve helped him. If anyone else had somehow got in the Tower and murdered them, Richard would’ve mentioned it. How could he not have murdered them?

OP posts:
UnctuousUnicorns · 02/06/2024 17:41

I'm also currently watching "The White Queen". Some seriously pantomimimey acting going on, especially from the older female parts. Very entertaining.

UnctuousUnicorns · 02/06/2024 17:37

RiderOfTheBlue · 02/06/2024 15:32

I wanted to thank all the people who recommended The Daughter of Time. Just finished and absolutely loved it.

I got that on the Kindle deal, and also bought an old copy of "We Speak No Treason", complete with bonus gift of fossilized moth inside. 😅 Both are awaiting reading after I've finished "The Plantagenets".

To think Richard III clearly murdered the princes in the tower?
EmpressaurusOfCats · 02/06/2024 15:49

I’ve just finished listening to Queens of the Conquest by Alison Weir, which starts with Matilda, the wife of William the Conqueror (they nearly all seem to have been called Matilda) & goes through to the first Plantagenets.

Before that I listened to her book on Katherine Swynford, mother of the first Beauforts. Both really interesting, both for themselves and as a prequel of sorts to what came later.

RiderOfTheBlue · 02/06/2024 15:32

I wanted to thank all the people who recommended The Daughter of Time. Just finished and absolutely loved it.

BebbanburgIsMine · 14/05/2024 15:05

@MrsScrubbingbrush

Lifelong Ricardian here too!

Loyaulte Me Lie.

Catsmere · 10/05/2024 22:26

MrsScrubbingbrush · 10/05/2024 13:39

@Catsmere it was! Though I'm not sure use the dogs would have been. One was a Boxer called Emma who identified as male as s/he would try and mount anyone and the other was a blind & deaf Spaniel who was like a little bumper car bouncing off the furniture until she got where she wanted to be.

The book, on the other hand was brilliant!

😆😆😆

SammyScrounge · 10/05/2024 20:03

Tontostitis · 06/05/2024 20:03

History is written by the victors. There were many contenders for the throne and several with access to the Princes and better motives. There is zero evidence Richard murdered them.

Zero? Really? He murdered the prince's uncle on that last journey to London
He has Hastings, a man loyal to the dead king and his sons, murdered
He published a load of sanctimonious claptrap to make him seem virtuous in comparison to his dead brother
The new evidence proving that least one of the prince's survived isn't new at all. It has been around for years and discounted