To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

Quote a few bets were won when it turned out Anastasia (who screamed in vain) really did perish in 1918.

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.

@ItisIbeserk I think to be fair to Tey, she did put in at least one contemporary rumour, but then attributed it to Morton and said it was therefore discredited.

AFAIK, no one was buying clothes or food for the Lord Bastards after summer 1483 - so to quote Tey, if history is in account books and not accounts, there isn't the evidence that the boys existed after September 1483 or so.

While she did amazingly to lead to Richard's body, I think that sounds very unlikely. History is all about finding new narratives so long as they are substantiated by sources. I can't remember where I read it at the time of her last documentary/evidence reveal but the documents she talked about are not new knowledge to medieval historians; she is putting a new and controversial spin on them. If there's a solid argument to be made, I think historians would engage with it very willingly!

There isn't a history establishment that says what we now think of as the story is set in stone and woe betide anyone who questions it. Otherwise I think thousands of active academics can down their tools and find a new job.

Sorry to go back to this but these are totally different scenarios. The Romanov family were Philips cousins, a generation removed. He would have grown up around family members who knew and loved them. He obviously would want to facilitate their identification and burial.

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.

These are both excellent examples of things that the Daughter of Time is wrong about. I absolutely adore the novel and it led me to a history degree, via the Ricard III Society, but I think the history as we know it now supports Richard as responsible for the deaths. Much of the contents of a Daughter of Time don't stand up, eg the claim that there are no contemporary references to the disappearance of the princes.

Honestly, I think that's v hard to say. If EV was on the throne, then Henry Tudor pledging to marry EofY to unite the factions wouldn't have been possible, and that would have reduced his support vs what happened in 1485, IMO.

I think there's a good chance he would never have bid for the throne.

@SheilaFentiman True, he wasn’t as safe as when his brother was on the throne.

Of course, all would’ve changed anyway when Henry VII made his bid for the throne. I think he would def. have tried during Edward V’s minority, it would be the perfect opportunity.

Maybe, but my suspicion is he felt he had no option. He thought his options were to grab the throne for himself or be the one murderered in the Tower. Somehow the lengths he had to go to to remain 'regent' precluded him safely stepping away and handing the crown on, or maybe another king wouldn't give him the protection he needed.

That's based on nothing more than my own personal bias and lack of ambition - I'd always take the safe comfortable life over the grand prize with a ton of risk and I assume everyone else would too.

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 😀

Hmmm.... maybe. But the Woodvilles had charge of the boys and were pushing for the Council (including them) to run the country rather than EIV's fairly last minute desire for Richard to be the Lord Protector, and it was EV's maternal uncle who had largely been raising him.

Richard would certainly not have been in a comfortably powerful position in a minority reign - see the Seymour brothers falling out with each other (and other nobles) during the minority of HVIII's son, Edward VI.

@Maray1967 Being the king’s uncle would be a v. powerful position, but presumably it wasn’t enough for Richard, he wanted to be king himself.

It’s interesting, because he was a powerful magnate when his brother was on the throne and he could’ve remained so if he’d supported his nephews.

I loved that book as a teenager! I must reread it.

And I agree re Henry VII

Richard had the greatest motive - survival. His career and probably his life were finished once his nephew was on the throne. He either left his sister jn laws’s male relatives alive - too dangerous - or he removed them and no doubt incurred the hostility of his nephew in doing so. Leaving his nephews alive meant his throne was never secure. Unfortunately, removing them lost him significant support and fatally weakened his reign. Richard opted for the brutal solution - reflective of his military career. Politically he couldn’t win either way. Even if he had defeated Tudor he would probably never have enjoyed the throne in peace.

And two others writing/speaking long before More (see: thehistoryofengland.co.uk/resource/the-fate-of-the-princes-evidence/):

John Rous was a Warwickshire based chronicler of the Neville family. He hated Richard fiercely, and as a witness is desperately unreliable. However, for what it’s worth, Rous wrote that Richard:
“…received his lord king Edward V blandly, with embraces and kisses and within about three months or a little more he killed them together with his brother.”

Rumours spread abroad. In January 1484, the Chancellor of France said to his audience, the Estates General:
“If I were determined to rcall special proofs of your loyalty to your prince and the treachery of others, a whole day would not suffice me. It will be enough to cite as an example our neighbours, the English. Look I pray you at the events which have happened in that land since the death of King Edward. Reflect how his children, already big and courageous, have been killed with impunity, and the crown has been transferred to their murder by the favour of the people.”

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.

To quote Mancini:

But after Hastings was removed, all the attendants who had waited on the king were debarred access to him. He and his brother were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower proper, and day by day began to be seen more rarely behind the bars and windows, til at length they ceased to appear altogether. The Physician John Argentine, the last of his attendants whose services the king enjoyed, reported that the young kin, like a victim prepared for sacrifice, sought remission of his sins by daily confession and penance, because he believed that death was facing him.”
“I have seen many men burst into tears and lamentations when mention was made of him after his removal from men’s sight; and already there is a suspicion that he had been done away with. Whether, However, he has been done away with, and by what manner of death, so far I have not yet at all discovered.”

Yes.

We can say with some certainty HVII would have killed them just as he did their cousin. The only reason he didn't was that they were killed before he arrived.

Mancini wrote the Usurpation of RIII by December 1483. He left England shortly after RIII's coronation, so would have been reporting on rumours/info sent by his contacts.

There were reported rumours in 1483.

Henry VII didn't have access, had no guarantee of gaining the throne, and would have gained more by presenting the boys alive and then using them to political advantage (e.g., marriage alliances like he did with Elizabeth).

HVII would have lost a lot by presenting them alive!

The first written report of their deaths was written by Thomas More, so he is not going to blame Henry VIII's dad is he? History is always written by the victor's who blame the losers for the flaws.

I think Richard did it, murdering potential rivals wasn't all that scandalous for the time and was more or less expected as the done thing really. Something didn't go to plan which is why the deaths (with an invented cause such as sickness) weren't announced, when the rumours of them dying began it would have been too convenient to then say "oh, they died of a fever". Richard had the most to gain but so did the country, putting a child on the throne would have led to further instability and fighting whereas an adult in his prime was a safer bet. As an experienced tactician, he'd have known the value of a small sacrifice for the sake of the greater purpose.

Henry VII didn't have access, had no guarantee of gaining the throne, and would have gained more by presenting the boys alive and then using them to political advantage (e.g., marriage alliances like he did with Elizabeth).

Motive vs Opportunity - Henry probably had the stronger motive but Richard the stronger opportunity. I think it's very likely that they were dead well before Bosworth but possibly just died from the plague or something similar. If this happened, and Richard told everyone they were dead, would people have believed they'd died of natural causes?

Adding - FWIW, Margaret was certainly in London by 6 July 1483, if not before, as she was at RIII's coronation.