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:
Thread gallery
6
Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:50

Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:44

Dead monarchs don’t decide the succession. The rules of primogeniture are followed (aside from the cases in which the crown has been taken by force).

In this system, daughters of monarchs come before brothers of monarchs, as seen by princesses throughout history.

The only time primogeniture has not been followed to the detriment of a woman throughout the entire course of English history post 1066 was in the case of Matilda, and even then the line continued with her son becoming king, not the son of her male cousin.

Edited
Show quote history

Mary I took the crown by force….she was illegitimate when Edward VI died remember?

MinervaMcGonagallsCat · 07/05/2024 00:48

Most likely Richard or his minions.

But we will never know.

Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:48

Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:44

Dead monarchs don’t decide the succession. The rules of primogeniture are followed (aside from the cases in which the crown has been taken by force).

In this system, daughters of monarchs come before brothers of monarchs, as seen by princesses throughout history.

The only time primogeniture has not been followed to the detriment of a woman throughout the entire course of English history post 1066 was in the case of Matilda, and even then the line continued with her son becoming king, not the son of her male cousin.

Edited
Show quote history

Not true at all.
And the monarchs were not dead when they changed the laws to determine their succession.

Matilda’s son was named Stephen’s heir through force of arms via the Treaty of Wallingbrook after 19yrs of civil war called the Anarchy. Otherwise Stephen’s eldest son would have been his heir.

So how is that for monarchs not deciding succession! Stephen decided it and overruled primogeniture.

Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:44

Technically, Henry VII’s mother, Margaret Beaufort should have been Queen ahead of him as his claim to the throne was through her…so she was passed over too.

Original poster
Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:44

Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:38

As well as Anne Stanley, Lady Jane Grey. Edward VI named her his heir, overriding Henry VIII’s will, and at the time, both Mary I and Elizabeth I were still illegitimate and ineligible for sucession by law.

De facto matters more than de jure.

Show quote history

Dead monarchs don’t decide the succession. The rules of primogeniture are followed (aside from the cases in which the crown has been taken by force).

In this system, daughters of monarchs come before brothers of monarchs, as seen by princesses throughout history.

The only time primogeniture has not been followed to the detriment of a woman throughout the entire course of English history post 1066 was in the case of Matilda, and even then the line continued with her son becoming king, not the son of her male cousin.

OP posts:
Original poster
Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:39

Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:28

@Ppejfhfhrhhfhf
Take for example, The legitimate and legal heir of Elizabeth I was Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven

Not James of Scotland. But he was a man, so

(Parliament's Third Succession Act granted Henry VIII the right to bequeath the crown in his Will. His Will specified that, in default of heirs to his children, the throne was to pass to the children of the daughters of his younger sister Mary Tudor, Queen of France, bypassing the line of his elder sister Margaret Tudor, represented by the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots. Edward VI confirmed this by letters patent.)

Anne Stanley was after Edward Seymour, Lord Beauchamp, but Mary was younger than Margaret anyway and Parliament was always going to follow primogeniture over the whims of a monarch who by this point has had three successors already.

Henry VIII was changing the succession every twenty minutes. In the end, they followed the system of primogeniture and went to the descendants of Henry’s eldest sister, not the younger. Both Henry VIII and Edward VI tried to dictate the succession after their deaths, and on both occasions, as Jane Grey found out, the rules of primogeniture were followed - in the latter case replacing a woman with a woman.

OP posts:
Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:38

Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:23

Yes, so it was very new when Matilda and Stephen were at war.

Which other English female heir has been passed over?

Show quote history

As well as Anne Stanley, Lady Jane Grey. Edward VI named her his heir, overriding Henry VIII’s will, and at the time, both Mary I and Elizabeth I were still illegitimate and ineligible for sucession by law.

De facto matters more than de jure.

Tumbleweed101 · 07/05/2024 00:36

I don't believe that he did. I think political goals in their era leaf their deaths however.

What puzzles me most is the refusal to check if the bones found at the towe of London were theirs. Surely ending speculation if far better for laying them to rest than refusing to have them checked?

Original poster
Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:31

BookSeeker22 · 06/05/2024 23:48

The thing that gets me is that the image of Richard the child-murdering usurper does not fit at all with what is known of his character before his brother, Edward IV’s, death.

The other brother, George of Clarence, betrayed them at least twice and ultimately died for it. Richard was steadfast, he adopted the motto “Loyalte me Lie” (Loyalty binds me), he was well loved in the north of England where he de facto ruled in his brother’s name. King Edward trusted him enough to name him Lord Protector. He actively had plans in motion to crown his nephew. Why do that only to “usurp” (questionable terminology given that he was petitioned by the lords of the realm to accept the crown and all of this was enshrined in law by the Titulus Regius)?

I do think that Bishop Stillington’s revelation came as a surprise to everyone, including Richard, which is why prior to that point plans were in motion for the coronation of Edward V.

After that, who knows? I don’t agree with those who seek to whitewash the entire thing but I just don’t think it all adds up to the Machiavellian usurper.

This is very interesting.

I didn’t know plans were in place for Edward to be crowned. I do find it hard to believe that the monk just suddenly came up with the information though. He’s got to have been put up to it, and the person with most to gain is Richard.

But the personal stuff I do wonder about. Why did Edward IV trust Richard with his sons? Is it a case of power corrupts?

OP posts:
Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:31

Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:23

Yes, so it was very new when Matilda and Stephen were at war.

Which other English female heir has been passed over?

Show quote history

No, it wasn’t “very new” to the Normans who brought it with them. They were the ones fighting over succession. 🙄

Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:29

Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:24

But if Henry had murdered them, wouldn’t Richard have mentioned it?

Show quote history

Where’s his proof Henry ordered it? He had none, so he executed Buckingham.

MrsSkylerWhite · 07/05/2024 00:29

This is the most brilliant thread, thanks OP!

Or not …. Ought to be asleep 😁

Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:28

@Ppejfhfhrhhfhf
Take for example, The legitimate and legal heir of Elizabeth I was Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven

Not James of Scotland. But he was a man, so

(Parliament's Third Succession Act granted Henry VIII the right to bequeath the crown in his Will. His Will specified that, in default of heirs to his children, the throne was to pass to the children of the daughters of his younger sister Mary Tudor, Queen of France, bypassing the line of his elder sister Margaret Tudor, represented by the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots. Edward VI confirmed this by letters patent.)

Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Stanley,_Countess_of_Castlehaven

Original poster
Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:26

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 06/05/2024 23:41

Oh and about the inheritance, Richard passed the Act of Titulus Regius , which proclaimed that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, the boys’ mother , was invalid, as Edward had been pre-contracted to another woman(conveniently dead). An extremely old Bishop was produced who claimed to have witnessed the contract, though he hadn’t mentioned it to anyone for twenty years. . So all the children of the Woodville marriage were ‘bastards’ and could not inherit the throne. The Lords Bastard (sic) were hidden away, and Richard became the ‘rightful’ heir to the throne.

Not many people believed in the pre contract at the time, but you don’t argue with the King (or at least, not until there is a viable opponent).

This is why I find it bewildering that anyone can believe Richard wasn’t responsible for their deaths. It’s so obvious.

OP posts:
Original poster
Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:24

Cherryon · 06/05/2024 23:16

I agree Duke of Buckingham is involved, but think he was under orders..

Duke of Buckingham and Henry VII met in August 1483 between Plymouth and London (Henry was anchored there for weeks). The princes disappeared September 1483. Buckingham caught and executed by Richard III…

Richard’s son Edward, dies suddenly at Middleham while his parents are in Nottingham in April 1484.

Henry VII invades in 1485….how convenient for him that the direct male heirs are already dead. Henry then kills every cousin, every Plantagenet to secure the throne for his children.

Show quote history

But if Henry had murdered them, wouldn’t Richard have mentioned it?

OP posts:
Original poster
Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:23

Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:19

More than one female heir has been passed over.
Yes, that’s when it was introduced to England, but it wasn’t a new system.

Show quote history

Yes, so it was very new when Matilda and Stephen were at war.

Which other English female heir has been passed over?

OP posts:
Feministwoman · 07/05/2024 00:22

Fangisnotacoward · 06/05/2024 20:06

History was rewritten by Henry VII.

Richard III was a kind and thoughtful man who cherished his young wards. In particular, Richard, Duke of York, who grew into a big, strong boy. Henry also claimed he won the Battle of Bosworth Field and killed Richard III. Again, the truth is very different; for it was Richard, Duke of York, who became king after Bosworth Field, and reigned for 13 glorious years...

(Though in all seriousness, yes, I believe he was responsible for their death, even if it was through indirect means like neglect)

Nice The Blackadder reference 🤣🤣🤣

Original poster
Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:21

Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:08

Mary II only skipped James III because he was the wrong religion….he had been disinherited for being Catholic.

I know. Nevertheless, the daughters inherited the throne with no civil war returning it to their brothers.

And then we had Princess Charlotte, the small princesses Charlotte and Elizabeth, Princess Victoria, Princess Elizabeth. All of them inheriting (or in line to inherit) unquestionably over their father’s brothers.

OP posts:
Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:19

Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:13

It’s only happened to one single female heir to the throne of England, 900 years ago. Even then, the succession continued down her line, not Stephen’s.

Primogeniture was introduced to England by William the Conqueror.

Show quote history

More than one female heir has been passed over.
Yes, that’s when it was introduced to England, but it wasn’t a new system.

TheCraicDealer · 07/05/2024 00:15

History Calling on YouTube did a to the ‘new evidence’ talked about in the PL documentary, which is worth a watch in tandem with the latter. Really interesting to see how things can be massaged and taken out of context if you want to shore up a certain position.

Honestly I think it was done under Richard’s orders or someone who thought they were doing him a favour. At the time of their disappearance Henry Tudor was very much the underdog, and it doesn’t make sense that his mother would have the means to have the two princes knocked off at that stage. And then it still doesn’t solve the issue of what happened to their bodies. Why, if she’d killed them, is there no record of Richard or his supporters, going “where are the boys?!”. The most obvious answer is because they knew rightly.

He might have had a pleasant relationship with his nephews before the death of their father, but power and the fear of losing it makes you do shitty things. If he did give the order, he probably would have been able to reconcile killing them by avoiding further war when the inevitable challenge came a few years down the line (because everyone knew the illegitimacy angle was spurious), and in protecting his own son’s life/inheritance.

Historian reacts to NEW PRINCES IN THE TOWER evidence from Philippa Langley | Channel 4 documentary

Did the PRINCES IN THE TOWER SURVIVE the reign of their uncle, Richard III? In this video from History Calling I’ll review the new Channel 4 documentary enti...

https://youtu.be/tQ5FaYFnS2E?si=4bGo086uaMuBLnpW

Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:13

Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:07

Who ruled after that?

Show quote history

Anne, but we are now 200years later- 1707
Point is that in history, women were not suddenly allowed to rule.
There is no way in 1484 that Elizabeth would have been allowed to rule ahead of Richard III
Mary and Elizabeth only barely clung on after little brother Edward VI died as there were no uncles who would have been chosen ahead of them.
It took several back and forths.

Original poster
Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:13

Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:06

Yeah, but it happened most often to the female heirs.
De facto matters more than de jure.

Also, the primogeniture of males system dates from the Romans, so not that new.

Show quote history

It’s only happened to one single female heir to the throne of England, 900 years ago. Even then, the succession continued down her line, not Stephen’s.

Primogeniture was introduced to England by William the Conqueror.

OP posts:
Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:08

Mary II only skipped James III because he was the wrong religion….he had been disinherited for being Catholic.

Original poster
Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:07

Cherryon · 06/05/2024 23:42

The couple, William III (of Orange- Dutch) and Mary II were supposed to be co-rulers as Mary II was the daughter of James II, but guess who really ruled?

Who ruled after that?

OP posts:
Cherryon · 07/05/2024 00:06

Ppejfhfhrhhfhf · 07/05/2024 00:03

What happened to Matilda can and has happened to heirs throughout history. She still placed before Stephen in the succession. Henry I was also only the third monarch since the Norman invasion, and the primogeniture system was very new. It’s not usual - this has happened to one single female heir (and many male heirs have lost their kingdom in battle).

We are talking about centuries later. Princess Charlotte was heir above her father’s numerous brothers, as was Princess Victoria and Princess Elizabeth.

There’s no way to prove it, but I strongly suspect Mary I and Elizabeth I wouldn’t have been subject to Civil War if Henry had had a surviving brother, and I doubt Mary II and Anne would’ve been. Indeed, they skipped their brothers.

Edited
Show quote history

Yeah, but it happened most often to the female heirs.
De facto matters more than de jure.

Also, the primogeniture of males system dates from the Romans, so not that new.

Swipe left for the next trending thread