To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

Arguments against the bodies being the Princes include
It is evidenced that the bodies were too low down to be of the 15th century.
At least one appeared to be a girl

"AIBU to have murdered my Dnephews?" 😁

If the 2 skeletons weren't the princes, who on earth were they? The chances that 2 boys of the same age from approximately the same time period were found buried together in the tower are pretty low. Yes maybe some children of servants might have lived there but they wouldn't have been buried there! People in the 14th c. were very religious, they wouldn't have just stuck their kids under some random staircase!

Also not sure why people are saying 'they had been declared illegitimate so were no risk to him.' So what? They could be re-legitimised - as a pp said Henry VII undid the de-legitimisation of EoW & E IV's relationship. Mary I and Elizabeth I were both declared illegitimate at one point, didn't stop them eventually ruling.

Also don't get people arguing 'Well their mother/the Pope/other random person never accused him so clearly THEY didn't think he did it.'
I mean, no shit sherlock. Firstly, who goes around accusing an omnipowerful monarch of anything?
Secondly, who goes around deliberately pissing off someone whom you believe to be a murderer?
If you genuinely believed he'd murdered several of your family members publicly accusing him of doing so would be like painting a big sign saying 'Do me next' on your back.
Thirdly, do people really think EVERY single document from 600plus years ago has survived? We're working off scraps and fragments. E o W could have written multiple letters saying 'burn this on reading but Richard killed my kids,' just because documents don't exist now doesn't mean they never did!

Basically if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. The most obvious and likely explanation is usually the correct one.

"AIBU to have murdered my Dnephews?" 😁

If the 2 skeletons weren't the princes, who on earth were they? The chances that 2 boys of the same age from approximately the same time period were found buried together in the tower are pretty low. Yes maybe some children of servants might have lived there but they wouldn't have been buried there! People in the 14th c. were very religious, they wouldn't have just stuck their kids under some random staircase!

Also not sure why people are saying 'they had been declared illegitimate so were no risk to him.' So what? They could be re-legitimised - as a pp said Henry VII undid the de-legitimisation of EoW & E IV's relationship. Mary I and Elizabeth I were both declared illegitimate at one point, didn't stop them eventually ruling.

Also don't get people arguing 'Well their mother/the Pope/other random person never accused him so clearly THEY didn't think he did it.'
I mean, no shit sherlock. Firstly, who goes around accusing an omnipowerful monarch of anything?
Secondly, who goes around deliberately pissing off someone whom you believe to be a murderer?
If you genuinely believed he'd murdered several of your family members publicly accusing him of doing so would be like painting a big sign saying 'Do me next' on your back.
Thirdly, do people really think EVERY single document from 600plus years ago has survived? We're working off scraps and fragments. E o W could have written multiple letters saying 'burn this on reading but Richard killed my kids,' just because documents don't exist now doesn't mean they never did!

Basically if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. The most obvious and likely explanation is usually the correct one.

The fact is that Richard didn’t need to kill them. He had already successfully taken the older one (Edward V)’s crown and made himself king. Yes the boys could pose a threat when they grew up IF they were successful in raising an army against Richard, but so were lots of people a threat to Richard. When they died everyone thought he did it, it undermined his authority and credibility. I think it’s more likely his enemies did it. This is supported by the fact that the Princes’ mum never accused Richard of killing her boys (wouldn’t you?) and then it was Henry VII who had her packed off to a nunnery during his reign. Maybe she knew. Considering her remaining child Elizabeth (the princes’ sister) had to marry Henry VII maybe she had no choice but to keep quiet in the nunnery or her daughter would suffer.

I’m just wondering if Richard111 was on here and reading this, he’d be posting ‘should I be offended…?’ because MNetters are never quite sure if they should be or not so they always have to ask others.

She completely failed to understand the significance of the insult injury delivered to him after death. It is very clear from Mancini’s account that it was widely believed at the time that the boys were dead early in the reign and that suspicion fell on their uncle. No serious historian argues that anyone else ordered their death.

I just disagree. They had been illigitamised and Richard caused no harm to other claimants. Why kill two illegitimate children and leave others with a true claim alive.

Hence, I believe that’s a reasonable reason with precedent

I just disagree. They had been illigitamised and Richard caused no harm to other claimants. Why kill two illegitimate children and leave others with a true claim alive.

Hence, I believe that’s a reasonable reason with precedent

I believe someone did the mDNA work for the Princes before RIII was dug up.

But once you have DNA profiles digitised, it’s no big deal to compare the bones to RIII’s DNA profile as well as any mDNA profile. There’s no reason not to do both, if both comparator profiles exist (and both would match if the bones were the princes and EW didn’t get pregnant at least twice by some other dude during war and exile and sanctuary and all that jazz)

She released Richard because Richard III was threatening to break sanctuary and that would’ve threatened the lives of her daughters as well as her son. Her children had committed no crimes. Why take them into sanctuary?

She knew Richard was a danger to them.

Entirely agree. Don’t think anyone has said otherwise.

IMO, the bones found at the bottom of a staircase in the white tower - and eventually interred in Westminster abbey - likely are the princes, and the princes very likely were EIV’s biological sons.

Just as the skeleton in the car park was very likely RIII from other evidence, even before mDNA gave a definitive answer, but a mismatch would have ruled it out.

Whats YMMV

@MyWarmOchreHare
Oh I see back now you were talking of a different matter and I didn’t give a full answer

It’s no surprise she went to Canterbury for protection. The hounds were circling and as it stood she had the nearest claim to the throne. Her youngest son still with her. She did eventually agree that he went to the TOL to be with Edward though, once protection was offered to the rest of the family

She accepted that and the ones killed by R3 at the time had committed treason against her husbands wishes. I assume she was aware of what her own family were up to

I think Lewis stretches his maybes more than many others, though 😀 YMMV

Whilst I don’t think she did. Beaufort lived at court, had the money, the power, the influence and definately the character and intelligence to have the boys killed.

She could easily have got Norfolks men to carry out the deed. ( or some other family desperate to climb the ladder). Norfolk gained great estates after their disappearances. Which the Dukes still hold today.

This is what I’m replying to. She simply could not have.

Every theory is all maybes though tbf. I enjoyed the deciphering of the intel from Ireland

I didn’t say it did. It had nothing to do with loyalty to Richard. I was discussing treason and the arrangements already made for the boys protection after Edward iv death. Arrangements made by Edward iv. That was his right, not the Queens or her families

Yes, as long as the boys are indeed Edward IV’s biological sons. And there is no proof of that. Richard can rule them in but not out.

I haven’t said I thought they were killed. Is this for someone else ?

Was discussing this topic only today with a friend. He went to Leicester where there is a Richard III museum, including a recreation of The Carpark Hole.
Excellent day out, he said. His memory is fresher than mine and he believes the current number one suspect is Henry Tudor.

As their uncle, I think RIii - whose DNA is on record now - is a close enough make match.

I agree that the mDNA line is different.

Yes.

Clearly they were considered dead before Bosworth because their support had shifted from the princes to Henry Tudor.

Although I don't see why Richard would have wanted to prove they were alive before Bosworth, even if they were.

The failing of any theory that they were killed after Bosworth is that, if Richard could have produced them to boys before it to prove he hadn’t killed them, he would have

Was anyone accusing of having killed them before Bosworth? I thought the rumours started in Henry's time.