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

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.

The beginning of your post is pretty much what Lucy Worsley said when asked at a talk of hers I went to.

There is insufficient evidence either way to be confident.

It’s fascinating though.

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?

This reminds me a bit of Jeremy Potter's novel A Trail of Blood - it's set during the Reformation. A monk is despatched to learn if the Princes survived (any halfway legitimate heir would be better than Henry VIII by then) and eventually learns that the younger boy did ... any more info would be spoilers!

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).

GRR Martin you mean? I’ve read the books and know that he plundered mediaeval history for characters and plot points. I always assumed the characters were at best amalgams of various aspects of real life people rather than direct inspirations.

Not in practice. Usually, a civil war is fought and the hieress loses. Matilda, eldest daughter of Henry I and sole heir. Henry I even made all the lords swear allegiance to her before his death. She fought for 19yrs and lost the throne to Stephen of Blois who claimed good old uncle Henry changed his mind on his deathbed…and he won.

it was rumoured that Richard was intending to marry the Princess Elizabeth (his niece) to secure his position, even though this would have required a Papal dispensation. Actually, Henry Tudor did marry her when he had killed Richard and taken over the State, to unite the two houses of Lancaster and York (hence the heraldic symbol of the double rose).

Surprisingly it seems to have been a very happy marriage, certainly he was devastated by her early death, did not remarry and they are buried side by side.

The Venetian Ambassador to the English court at the time reported that that there was a great deal of speculation and unease about the ‘disappearance’ of the two Princes, and that it was rumoured ‘in court and in tavern’ that their Uncle had a hand in this. Venetian Ambassadors were notoriously well informed and very thorough in their reports on the states they were posted to.

Also I think the old adage ‘cui bono’ , ‘who benefits’ is relevant; the future Henry VII was at the time a penniless fugitive and exile, no one at the French Court thought much of his chances of ever going back to England, let alone acceding to the throne. It is unclear how he could arrange for the murder of two important prisoners in the most secure fortress of a foreign power, or how his mother (living in retirement with her third husband) could have managed this either.

Henry Tudor’s position only changed with the disappearance of the Princes, and the usurpation ( sic) of Gloucester.

I remember how Gloucester’s modern advocates firmly denied that he was a ‘hunchback’ , that was supposed to be an invention by Thomas More, as well. Until the discovery of the body, which demonstrably suffered from scoliosis.

Yep, and even the younger brother of a king took precedence over a kings eldest daughter.

"killing the boys wouldn’t make him king - the heir would be their eldest sister, Elizabeth."

No, back then males took precedence over females in the succession to the throne, regardless of whether or not they were younger than their sisters. That was only recently changed, during Elizabeth II's reign.

When people say Richard did it, they don't literally mean HE did it, just his power ordered it. Surely no one believes he would have done it himself 🫤

I think of Margaret Beaufort being like Olenna Tyrell in Game of Thrones

That’s who he based it on, isn’t it?

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.

As I recall (from Daughter of Time), Henry VII published a list of Richard’s failings and crimes when he took the throne.

Killing the Princes wasn’t on it. You’d think that would be top of the list wouldn’t you? Unless they were still alive at that time, or it was something Henry didn’t want to call attention to.

Margaret Beaufort was an unbelievably ambitious woman to the point of fanaticism, I wouldn’t put it past her.

Too late to go down that rabbit hole now 😄
Watch The Lost King and take a look at Richard III Society.

Great thread, though.

I fancy the Duke of Buckingham as the instigator of the disappearance of the Princes, as this would have supported his own dreams of gaining the throne.

He would have been aided and abetted by Margaret Beaufort, who was ever quick to see a possible advantage for her son.

A favourite theory of mine though is....
Sir Thomas More was one of the first documented to accuse Richard III of their murder, but with his links to Cardinal Morton, who supported Henry Tudor against Richard, this isn't surprising.

However, I like to think that this was a bit of bluffing from More, as he knew that the Princes had survived in hiding, in Europe, because he had one of them in his household as his Secretary.

I don't think Richard and Elizabeth would actually have married, this wouldn't have been lawful. But I can't help but feel they had a relatively close relationship and if she thought he had murdered her brothers this seems so unlikely.

Yes, Bishop Stillington.

But when a teenage king and his only brother’s care is left to a man who convinced Parliament to declare them illegitimate, declare himself king, and at the same time the boys vanish, it does seem a bit of a stretch to believe the said uncle didn’t have a hand in their murder”

I don’t know, I rather suspect the Woodville uncles.
Very odd behaviour from their mother, too. Agreeing to the idea that Richard should then marry their sister, thus ensuring her own position.

Strange times.

“However, in a short time after, it was fully seen how vain are the thoughts of a man who desires to establish his interests without the aid of God. For, in the following month of April, on a day not very far distant from the anniversary of king Edward, this only son of his, in whom all the hopes of the royal succession, fortified with so many oaths, were centred, was seized with an illness of but short duration, and died at Middleham Castle, in the year of our Lord, 1484, being the first of the reign of the said king Richard. On hearing the news of this, at Nottingham, where they were then residing, you might have seen his father and mother in a state almost bordering on madness, by reason of their sudden grief.”

Sudden, short illness or poison? They often couldn’t tell the difference then.