To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

OK - so RIII left London on 22 July 1483, taking Margaret's husband Stanley with him. According to Nicola Tallis's biography of Margaret, John Stow's General Chronicles of England (1615) report a plot to free the boys by setting fire to other bits of London as a distraction. On 29th July, RIII issued a warrant that seemed to refer to the people involved in this, and the boys were thereafter taken further into the tower.

Obviously 1615 is not contemporary, but any such action or suspicion could well have made RIII feel insecure about the boys continuing to live.

They’d grow into men and raise armies. Armies would’ve likely been raised in their name before they were men.

If they were safe, why didn’t Richard produce them when rumours started flying that he’d murdered them? Arguably which contributed to his demise at Bosworth.

Also, my understanding is that there was an
attempt in July 1483 to help the princes escape the tower, but I need to check if that was from a fiction or fact book 😀

But something like that could trigger the killing of the boys, just as Edward, Earl of Warwick was fine as a prisoner, given the attainder, until Henry VII was negotiating Arthur’s marriage.

It doesn’t though, it doesn’t answer the access question.

Because as long as they were alive, they were a potential focus for rebels. Look at Lincoln’s support for Lambert Simnel (though that might have been self interest, same as Buckingham’s support for the first Tudor invasion).

The Beaufort line was declared legitimate but out of the line of succession - didn’t stop the yorkists trying to keep Henry Tudor a (comfortable) prisoner in France for many years. What has been declared can be repealed (as indeed Henry VII did with Titulus Regius to legitimise EofY)

You only have to look at his face. Guilty as hell. I think they should lock him up and throw away the key. This man should never walk free again 😡

he would have kept them safe but out the way and shipped them off to his sister in Burgundy or similar.

If Margaret of Burgundy had the princes in her country, she would absolutely have said so, given her support for later pretenders against Henry VII.

What did Riii have to gain? They were put aside declared illegitimate He had the crown why bother?

Kinda. The Woodvilles declared a very early coronation date, but Richard actually arrived in town with EV on the day it was meant to take place (early May). Preparations continued for a mid June coronation but in the meantime, Bishop Stillington declared that EIV had been precontracted to Eleanor Talbot/Butler and so his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was invalid and all the children illegitimate.

She was seeking sanctuary from Richard who’d arrested and murdered her brother and son.

Philippa Gregory’s books are pure fiction with more holes than Swiss cheese.

So Richard finds his nephews slain, not on his command and.. does nothing? Doesn’t tell anyone? Doesn’t use it to his advantage that his enemies have killed two children? It doesn’t make sense.

I’m not a fan of PG’s novels but more than that it annoys me how she has tried to assert that Margaret Beaufort really did kill the Princes in the Tower, as it played out in her novel. She strikes me as a bit of a fantasist (or someone cynical enough to say anything to cash in).

Didn’t Richard postpone the coronation and have them recorded as illegitimate? He could have sorted the coronation out swiftly for the elder one?

once they were illegitimate it would have made sense to get them away to Europe or somewhere and have them drown in a tragic accident

How would they have gained access to them? The failing of any theory other than Richard killing them is the access.

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.

If you mean by that he didn't do it then me too.

Of course he did!

They disappeared when they were under his control, before Henry arrived. The people of the time thought they were dead and shifted alliances accordingly before Henry rocked up.

Of course, Edward, Earl of Warwick was also a rival Prince in a tower, and Henry certainly killed him in the Tower. So the murderered princes in the Tower score is Richard: 2 Henry: 1.

I don't think we can really blame either. It was kill or be killed.

Richard is by far the most likely culprit (although clearly impossible to prove definitively after so long, unless a smoking gun document turns up). The Daughter of Time/Henry VII theory doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. The Rest is History did a brilliant episode on the Princes in the Tower and they concluded it was Richard. Definitely worth a listen.

Not sure it was by the people, but certainly by the other nobles, who were suddenly being prevailed upon to marry the relatives of the Queen, who were generally of fairly low rank and dowry.

Why were the Woodvilles hated so much by the people? Were they just considered power and wealth grabbing upstarts?

I often wondered! I was a child at the time. She’d be well over 100 if she was alive now.

If Riii killed them why did Henry Tudor, Elizabeth Woodville (the princes’ mother) or Elizabeth of York (their sister) not denounce him for it? Once Riii was dead, they could have said what they liked but they didn’t.

If no one knew where the bodies were, then it might be a case of least said, soonest mended - could have given rise to more conspiracy theories about them being exiled etc.

Equally, why didn't RIII produce them when Mancini (IIRC) was reporting on rumours of their death in the summer of 1483, if he was in a position to do so? Edward, Earl of Warwick was around and about in the Tower at the time and for years afterwards, I believe.

In January 1484, Margaret was placed under "house arrest" in the custody of her husband, Stanley, following her role in Henry Tudor's failed October 1483 invasion (Buckingham was also involved and was beheaded in November 1483). She was sent North. So if you want her to do anything at court, it's before then, or after Bosworth, I think.

I don’t think Riii did it. I don’t think it would be in keeping with his reputation and character as Duke of Gloucester. He had a stellar reputation - very big on law and order and justice and always 100% loyal to his brother Edward IV (the princes’ father). His first act as King was to summon the judges and tell them that in his England he expected justice to be dispensed fairly and equally for all and that a poor man was just as entitled to justice as a rich one.

I incline more to thinking neither of the princes were murdered (by Riii anyway) - he would have kept them safe but out the way and shipped them off to his sister in Burgundy or similar.

If Riii killed them why did Henry Tudor, Elizabeth Woodville (the princes’ mother) or Elizabeth of York (their sister) not denounce him for it? Once Riii was dead, they could have said what they liked but they didn’t.