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 blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

664 replies

HenryTudor1485 · 23/07/2025 23:37

He’s undergone a bit of a reappraisal recently but I’m not having it. He was a wrong un.

He clearly had his nephews killed. He had motive, means and opportunity. The dates when they “disappeared” all add up.

He done the crime. He never did the time (unless you consider being defeated in battle and being hacked to death “time”).

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
DrPrunesqualer · 24/07/2025 22:45

DrPrunesqualer · 24/07/2025 22:39

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

Show quote history

@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

angelinawasrobbed · 24/07/2025 22:41

Viewed 500+ years later via modern sensibilities and in isolation, the murder of the princes is a shocking act. Considered in the context of the 50 years of so before RIII took the throne, it is barely a blip on the murder-ometer. So, reluctantly, I’m putting it on Richard.

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 22:41

crackofdoom · 24/07/2025 18:52

I'm trying to remember now, but was her theory not that Margaret Beaufort persuaded the Duke of Buckingham to have it done, and he was Lord Protector of the Tower at the time? (hence access). Or one of his close allies?

Show quote history

Why would Buckingham have done that? It just doesn’t make an ounce of sense.

DrPrunesqualer · 24/07/2025 22:39

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 22:35

Yes, which doesn’t suggest lifelong loyalty to Richard, does it?

Show quote history

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

ItisIbeserk · 24/07/2025 22:37

SheilaFentiman · 24/07/2025 22:20

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.

Show quote history

Yes, we covered my brain fog moment above! I did initially suggest their maternal grandmother, to do me a little credit I guess.

ETA my turn to quote the wrong post - it was the one above I meant to reply to.

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 22:35

DrPrunesqualer · 24/07/2025 17:18

Because of Treason. They were acting against the wishes of their late King
The Woodvilles were not regarded highly, they were not of U.K. Noble birth. They were ruthless in attempts to gain power but had a bigger hill to climb than most.

Edited
Show quote history

Yes, which doesn’t suggest lifelong loyalty to Richard, does it?

DrPrunesqualer · 24/07/2025 22:35

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 22:33

How? Their bodies would have been found. Or of, by some miracle, their bodies were removed from a heavily guarded fortress, he’d know they weren’t in missing.

Show quote history

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

DrPrunesqualer · 24/07/2025 22:33

ThePoliteLion · 24/07/2025 22:28

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.

If it was him I think it would have been instigated by Margaret Beaufort. She was devoted to her only son and obsessed with power.

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 22:33

DrPrunesqualer · 24/07/2025 17:11

I haven’t said Richard finds his nephews slain. That’s one of the big questions I think.

Show quote history

How? Their bodies would have been found. Or of, by some miracle, their bodies were removed from a heavily guarded fortress, he’d know they weren’t in missing.

DrPrunesqualer · 24/07/2025 22:31

SheilaFentiman · 24/07/2025 21:51

@DrPrunesqualer I am partway through the Matthew Lewis book and find it a stack of maybes… maybe some yorkist
nobleman was in some town keeping one of the princes safe… or maybe he was just there for some other reason?!

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

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 22:30

ItisIbeserk · 24/07/2025 17:07

Did it end up with the same Canadian I wonder, or were there Jacquetta relatives they looked at? I'd forgotten that now they could compare to Richard himself!

Show quote history

They can’t really. A match would rule them in. But no match wouldn't rule them out.

Daphnise · 24/07/2025 22:30

It was Trump.

ThePoliteLion · 24/07/2025 22:28

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.

Bryonyberries · 24/07/2025 22:28

Have any of you read Sunne in Splendour by Sharon penman? This novel influenced my thoughts (rightly or wrongly) on what may have happened.

SheilaFentiman · 24/07/2025 22:20

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 22:13

It couldn’t really be checked against the same source as Richard III. They would have to find a matriarchal line from EV’s sisters or aunts.

Show quote history

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.

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 22:13

SheilaFentiman · 24/07/2025 17:05

I assume any DNA testing of the bones in the Tower would need to be checked against the same source that Richard's bones were, given there is no link between the princes and the current royal family. All three were descended from Cicely Neville.

I think someone did a similar mDNA exercise for the Princes, before RIII's body was found, but yes, RIII would presumably be a good source.

It couldn’t really be checked against the same source as Richard III. They would have to find a matriarchal line from EV’s sisters or aunts.

SheilaFentiman · 24/07/2025 21:51

@DrPrunesqualer I am partway through the Matthew Lewis book and find it a stack of maybes… maybe some yorkist
nobleman was in some town keeping one of the princes safe… or maybe he was just there for some other reason?!

GreenIsMyFavoriteColour · 24/07/2025 21:50

EmotionallyWeird · 24/07/2025 21:35

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.

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.

SheilaFentiman · 24/07/2025 21:49

EmotionallyWeird · 24/07/2025 21:35

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.

See my above posts re Mancini and others.

EmotionallyWeird · 24/07/2025 21:35

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.

GreenIsMyFavoriteColour · 24/07/2025 21:11

LemondrizzleShark · 24/07/2025 20:32

So, while I do think Richard did it, the chain isn’t a smoking gun for me - if you had murdered a king and stolen the chain off his body, I don’t think your sister would be trumpeting that fact thirty years later.

If that chain did really belong to Edward V, I don’t think James Tyrell obtained it via his murder. Possibly a gift? (I also don’t think it will have been his chain of office, since Edward was a child and was never crowned - likely just a normal gold chain).

Show quote history

Yeah, it means absolutely nothing except book sales.

DrPrunesqualer · 24/07/2025 21:05

Has ‘The Survival of The Princes In the Tower’ by Matthew Lewis been mentioned yet.

It’s worth a read to get an angle on the boys potential survival.

It contains contemporary material written and evidenced at and around the time.

WarrenTofficier · 24/07/2025 20:57

SerendipityJane · 24/07/2025 16:35

You really need to factor in the entire backstory to the age - including the sensitivities around usurpers (real or perceived), and then apply Occams razor.

At which point it makes very little sense for anyone else to have done it.

Richard was a medieval King. Murder and intrigue were embedded deep into the fabric of European power politics. Being responsible (I doubt he was anywhere near the actual deed) for the murder and disappearance of potential claimants to the throne was part and parcel of that. It also provided a little bit of a trip wire for anyone plotting against him ....and since Josephine Tey is mentioned, can anyone recall the plot twist of Brat Farrar 😀

Re Brat Farrar I can but there is a radio adaption available on Sounds if you want a refresher

Christwosheds · 24/07/2025 20:48

WestwardHo1 · 24/07/2025 11:21

I love this post.

Jacquetta of Luxembourg was an intriguing character.

Show quote history

She is my children’s many times great Grandmother.

LemondrizzleShark · 24/07/2025 20:32

Elliania · 24/07/2025 00:48

There was very interesting documentary not too long ago where they found evidence of a will which bequeaths an item that very well could have belonged to one of the princes to a descendent. With a bit more digging they found out that the will belonged to the family of Sir James Tyrell who was a member of Richard III's household and was often named as a strong suspect for killing the boys.

https://www.paramount-mediahub.co.uk/press-releases/breakthrough-in-centuries-old-princes-in-the-tower-mystery-revealed-in-new-channel-5-documentary

So, while I do think Richard did it, the chain isn’t a smoking gun for me - if you had murdered a king and stolen the chain off his body, I don’t think your sister would be trumpeting that fact thirty years later.

If that chain did really belong to Edward V, I don’t think James Tyrell obtained it via his murder. Possibly a gift? (I also don’t think it will have been his chain of office, since Edward was a child and was never crowned - likely just a normal gold chain).

Swipe left for the next trending thread