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

He did have a son, Edward, who unfortunately died the year after Richard usurped the throne, and less than a year after the Princes disappeared.

If they were smothered or poisoned, likely yes he could have got away with it. Lots of nobles died suddenly of illness and poison would be suspected, and also the other way round back then. The courts had access to poisons that were indistinguishable from sudden illness or just plain food that has gone off to their medical science then.

They had coroners then who did inquests, but no one would dare voice suspicion unless obvious like stab wounds or blunt force trauma to the head wound.

Edward IV deposed Henry VI and had parliament declare him the legitimate heir to the throne. When Richard III deposed Edward IV he did the same thing and sought to invalidate any figure claims from Edward's children. I think at this point Richard had a living son who he would hope would inherit? Unless I've mixed up my timeline it's an incredibly complex period in history!

There is insufficient evidence for any of the theories. Could have been Richard, but also could have been Margaret Beaufort, Buckingham or - as mentioned - natural causes. I was less convinced by the recent TV programme suggesting that one or both of the princes had escaped.
There has recently been a wonderful play called "Richard, My Richard" (Philippa Gregory) which looks at it from Richard's perspective, as well as putting the women back into the story. I did cry at the end!

Another vote for the Josephine Tey novel. Her books are great reads in general, if of their time. Daughter of Time lays out the rationale for the murder of the Princes not to be Richard III quite well, and I don’t think there’s been much new evidence since then. The Rob Rinder programme had me shouting at the telly and if that was evidence of his critical analysis skills then I can see why he gave up being a barrister to go on the telly.

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

Although Henry VII was undercover within a few hours ride of London and had secret meetings the month before the last sighting of the princes while Richard was far far away up north in York.

Henry VII was planning his invasion and gathering support from nobles who would turn against Richard III at Bosworth.

Perhaps part of the invasion planning was doing away with not just Richard, but his nephews too. A few whispers in a few ears, some palms greased, a guard bought off to assassinate the boys…very easy.

Richard III is interesting as a historical figure. He's been so reviled over the centuries (and still is by many) yet now there is a group of people who are almost fanatical in their desire to rehabilitate his reputation. They're a strange group, I can't work out why they're so invested.

Yep same - I agree it didn’t benefit Richard for them to die as everyone would assume he murdered them. Would have been politically damaging for it to be rumoured he’d murdered his own nephews. So if they died, it would make sense for it to be hushed up. But they obviously disappeared from the record shortly after entering the Tower.

So many heirs died of natural causes back then - if you read histories of the minor Tudors and Yorks, loads of perfectly healthy kids were killed off by passing fevers. Richard’s own son died aged 10 of natural causes, so seems perfectly plausible the Princes in the Tower did too.

I thought the boys were 9 and 12.

There was also the rumors that Richard wanted to marry his niece Elizabeth of York when his wife Anne was dying and they had no children. It's believed there was evidence there was an attachment... It seems highly unlikely Elizabeth would entertain this in any capacity if she thought Richard had killed her brothers? Or have I got that totally wrong? I know Richard came out and denied these rumours but they certainly had a relationship of sorts...

How are you so certain? Are you an historian?

Have you seen The Lost King? Worth a watch.

I will just leave this here.

Well and Perkin Warbeck did indeed come calling.

Killing princes, you still have pretenders with armies to defeat.

Utter nonsense.

Contemporary sources are very clear. The boys disappeared from sight and Richard III lost a lot of support from the Yorkist political elite, his own family’s side. A source that cannot possibly be regarded as Tudor propaganda reports much suspicion that the boys were dead within months of Richard seizing the throne. The insult injury he received postmortem is very telling - stabbed in the backside while already dead. He was reviled in his own lifetime.

He was already king before the princes disappeared….

It was very much in Henry VII's interest for them to disappear. He married Elizabeth of York and with the two lads out of the way, it strengthened his marriage and prospects. York/Lancaster as one.

Shakespeare wrote in Tudor times and it would not have gone down well with Elizabeth I if he named Henry. Tudor court and politicians were given Richard as a scapegoat. Propaganda.

I’ve always thought they probably died of natural causes and it was kept quiet for the sake of stability

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)?

There are very few genuinely contemporary sources, that is, from the time of Richard III. That's the problem. Most of the sources are from the time of Henry VII. Those that are from Richard's time are either foreign, or associated with known enemies of Richard. Josephine Tey goes into this.

I read the beginning of P. Langley's latest book, but it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know from Josephine Tey, so I didn't persevere with it.

In another example of royal dna testing, both Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh were related to the Tsarina of Russia and her daughters who were murdered in ?1917.

But it was his DNA that was useful, because he and they shared a common female ancestor, whereas Elizabeth was related through her father.

He provided a sample and they found a match.

Any Barbara Willard fans? Anyone believe her narrative in ‘A Sprig of Broom’?

I read it, a long time ago. If I'm remembering it correctly, she didn't invent the story, it's based on a mix of local legend and fact.