To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

We know nothing for sure.

again if we could exhume Warbeks grave at Austin Friars we might have evidence.

There is evidence people claiming to be the princes lived/died in battle. It’s not the same thing as it actually being them.

I don’t know why people think it could be anyone else but Richard. Think about it as if it happened today. An uncle takes control of his nephews estates, makes out they shouldn’t have it, locks them away (in his care) and they suddenly disappear. Come one, the uncle would be the number one suspect.

Sometimes the most logical answer is the right answer.

Yeah. It was cruel and barbaric, but Game of Thrones was inspired partly by the wars of the roses. Henry VIII was tormented by the idea of not having a son, and it makes sense when you look at the context. 😬 Not that it justifies it.

There really isn't. Everyone who wanted to invade England or cause trouble came up with a fake Prince in the tower who just happened to be in their possesion. And guess what, when they wrote notes or records locally they didn't say "our fake stooge prince" they just said "the prince".

Is Perkin Walbeck legit? Nope. Nor are the others.

There is evidence that they lived in Ireland and France with one of them dying in battle in Ireland. There is absolutely no real evidence that they died nor that Richard III murdered them. There was a documentary explaining this on television last year

Plus HVII pretty much wiped out anyone who had any sort of Yorkist claim & didn't happen to be his missus.

If only Charles III had done that. I'd have watched the news that day.

if you want to take the throne you take it, but you keep the challengers alive and under your control to stop rebellions forming behind them

Lady Jane Grey. Mary Queen of Scots. Simon De Montford had the king in his possession.

Having someone in your custody does not stop a rebellion.

No she didn't.

I think we have to assume that he thought if he didn't kill them he'd be 6ft under long before the early 90s. If he could simply have chosen not to do it I'm sure he'd take that (much easier) option.

@CorvusPurpureus quite (re HVII) - but the poster I replied to suggested it had been a sudden change from the prior situation.

Plus HVII pretty much wiped out anyone who had any sort of Yorkist claim & didn't happen to be his missus.

If EV & ROY were murdered, & if they didn't die of a poorly timed lurgy (cf my RIII wouldn't have been stupid enough to kill them before '85 theory) then they were absolutely not unusual in being eliminated as children.

Poor kids. Whatever happened to them, imagine being 12yo Edward V, brought up as the heir to the throne, & suddenly your dad is dead.

You are supposedly in charge of your journey to London, to be crowned,, but it's made very clear you aren't.

Your dour uncle Richard is suddenly in charge of everything.

Your trusted family members are being executed, you're being shuffled off to a nice safe Tower & btw you aren't going to be King anymore, because apparently your parents' marriage is invalid.

& you aren't stupid - you know perfectly well that you & your brother are never going to come out of this prison alive, & you'll never see your mother or your sisters again.

Poor lad. It must have all been completely terrifying.

I was going to say! Henry VI died very conveniently if he wasn’t offed.

Elizabeth tried the lifelong imprisonment route with Mary QOS and that didn’t end well. Perkin Warbeck ended up dead under Henry VII, as did the Earl of Warwick.

why all of a sudden make recourse to murder

Not really all of a sudden. Henry VI, his son, Edward IV’s brother George were all threats to the throne and put to death as challengers/threats to the throne of Edward IV.

Didn’t James Tyrell confess to murdering the boys on the order of Richard 111. He suffocated them in a feather mattress.

Richard might have done it, and Henry the V11 was definitely capable of doing it ( very cold and determined), but I think both are unlikely- if you want to take the throne you take it, but you keep the challengers alive and under your control to stop rebellions forming behind them. Within a couple of generations there had been depositions, and forced abdications- why all of a sudden make recourse to murder? The shadow would be cast over you for ever afterwards, you wouldn't choose it- shove them into a castle with your chatelaine in charge is much better.

There are several links on this thread discussing that evidence. It certainly is not absolute proof of life.

St Dunstans , where the head is , is a local Anglican Church. Not Catholic.

We’re not talking about Canterbury Carhedral

ps. Yes I would definately disagree. We see, however, that the Church doesn’t seem that bothered about disturbing the grave.

Philippa Langley found absolute proof of life of both of those boys as young men

So you would disagree with them doing that, as disturbing his remains?

I would have thought people interested in More would visit the grave as readily as look at a skull! I don’t think your local church should do it.

ETA the picture hadnt posted, I see it’s a bit more than a local church!

Definitely not Margaret Beaufort or Buckingham, they wouldn't have had the reach/influence.

My theory (lads dead by 1485, bodies missing, HVII stfu) does allow for RIII deciding 'I wish the bastards dead' & putting that in place, but that just feels wrong.

He may very well have been a ruthless tyrant, or a reluctant ruler who thought he'd better step up to avoid chaos. & he totally usurped the throne - if EV & ROY were declared illegitimate, that still left Edward of Warwick, whose father's treason didn't bar him from the succession.

It's clear that in 1483 he thought he was the best man for the job, & was happy to shunt aside at least 3 small nephews.

I'm just not convinced he would have killed them THEN - murdering sweet golden haired innocents who had been recognised as the heirs months previously would have had awful optics.

Executing surly spotty adolescents on trumped up charges for treason, in the early '90s - he'd absolutely have pulled that off if he'd won at Bosworth, remarried & produced heirs.

.

Exactly @ItisIbeserk

@SheilaFentiman

This is local to me
Local Anglican Church that has the Head of St Thomas More buried in his daughters family vault ( she lived just up the road )
The Church want to remove it after 500 years and put it on display !!!

Pilgrims = money!!

Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII’s mother) is a prime suspect for me. She was ruthless in her desire for her son to be king.

Motive - perhaps. Means and opportunity?