To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

That book is a great read but it is fiction. It's really easy to get on Richards side when you read it but it doesn't stack up against primary source, contemporary evidence.

She was at court and quite close to Elizabeth Woodville. There was no suspicion on her at the time.

They were found buried under a stair, where More said they were buried. The last time they were examined, in the 1920s, there was evidence of gum disease, for which we know Edward was seen by a Dr in 1483. Any more recent "evidence" has only been gleaned from examining the 1920s photographs. I really don't think we can credit that.

I admire Philippa Langley's enthusiasm, but she lacks the objectivity necessary to a true historian.

She was relentless in her mission to get Henry VII on the throne and I believe she was at court at the time?

At which time? Summer 1483?

It wasn’t until later that year that Margaret began communicating (probably via their mutual doctor) with Elizabeth Woodville about marrying Henry to EoY. And I don’t think Margaret did particularly think the throne would come to Henry until after RIII became king - before that, she was petitioning EIV to get him out of France (and there is a draft paper indicating that EIV was considering this in 1482, given he was feeling fairly secure on the throne with two healthy sons and a bunch of daughters)

Yes, sorry but as a way of asking who else would Richard have had to be worried about. I agree those are closer than Henry but nobody of real risk to Richard. In this way I dont think that Richard someone who had grown up with the threat of Lancaster nearly all his life would have found Henry's threat insignificant

Again closer than Henry but not really a threat to Richard as he was only a child and his father had been executed for treason.

I lean towards the Margaret Beaufort theory. She was relentless in her mission to get Henry VII on the throne and I believe she was at court at the time?! Or I may have been watching too many TV adaptations which have bent the truth!
I’m kind of torn, I don’t want to believe Richard III did it but I’m not sure why!

Sure, but I thought the question was who had a better claim than Henry Tudor, as opposed to a better claim than RIII?

@DrPrunesqualer Not quite - Rivers and Grey set off for London with EV before Richard had news of EIV’s death. So they weren’t acting against his orders in doing so. I agree that their purpose was to give the Woodville side more influence though.

I am not disputing that it was sensible of Richard to execute them - it was also sensible of EW to go into sanctuary when she heard this.

I had missed her and her sons yes they would have been closer than Henry but they were loyal yorkists and unlikely to challenge Richard.

Edward, Earl of Warwick would probably have been the heir after the Princes. He was the son of the Queen's sister but more importantly his father was George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, the younger brother of Richard III and the late King Edward IV. As you said though, there weren't really any other options.

Oh, for sure. It's a good story of how Margaret Beaufort could have had the princes done away with though.

The Princes mother.

It’s like the game of thrones isn’t it

The king dies and puts Richard as Lord Protector of his sons. Not his wife and not any member of the Woodville family.

The Woodville family ie All the Woodvilles want control of the Crown. The Woodvilles had become very powerful after the marriage and when Edward died unexpectsntly rushed to secure the Crown for themselves. They didn’t want Edward’s family ie Richard to control that despite Edward’s choice. So Woodville's brother took the Prince and made for London. Against Richard’s orders

They were seeking to make a claim against Edward’s wishes and so Richard had him executed for Treason.

The son of Edward IV's sister Elizabeth (John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln) was one, he was in his 20s, I think.

Henry's claim was through illegitimacy surely. They were barred from succession.

I know there’s supposed to be a strong argument in favour of it being Henry VII, but I don’t buy it. They were last seen alive when The Richard III was on the throne. His claim to the throne was in question as long as they were alive. In his position it was the sensible thing to do. I don’t doubt that Henry VII would have done it if they’d still been alive when he got there since they were a threat to him too. I just don’t believe Richard III would have risked keeping them alive for that long.

Henry Tudor, for all his sketchy claims, was an adult who, as a foreigner to England, would be potentially relying on the advice of these noble families to tell him how things should be done and was therefore a pretty good alternative.

Also this is a great point. In these discussions, the merits of Henry himself are often overlooked, especially given the exploits of his deranged and despotic son. The country had known half a century of turmoil and bloodshed, and there was no money (sound familiar?). Henry was no dashing warrior, he was a shrewd administrator and was financially extremely savvy. He effectively brought an end to the Wars of the Roses, and literally married the Houses or York and Lancaster, and snuffed out any potential turmoil. It seems to me that the country, apart from a couple of fairly token rebellions under Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel, had had enough of fighting and just wanted to get on with it. Henry brought stability.

Who had a better claim to the throne? I've looked and cant find them but I've probably missed some. I know Buckingham was executed his son would have only been 7 in 1485. Edward earl of Warwick again was only 10 the last earl of March was dead without issue. Who am I missing? I dont think he would have seen Henry as a minor threat. I think Richard would have been keeping tabs on him. Especially as he had already had to quash rebellions.

Good question. We know ( by that I mean from historians ) Beaufort and Woodville knew each other well. We know they both promoted Henry vii being King.( or rather Woodville supported Beauforts efforts) We know the Princes had been illegitamised. We know had the Princes had an existing legitimate claim it would have been better than Henry’s by far. However Henry needed support to take down Richard and by making claims he killed the Princes he had that.

( Richard was making good moves throughout the country to make it a fairer place for all do his popularity would rise if he was left in place for too long.)

So why then didn’t Woodville campaign for her boys. Perhaps because she knew she’d get a Queen out of the deal and still keep her sons alive. Perhaps.

Was she seeking sanctuary from just Richard? We don’t know for sure. Or was she seeking it from others that cut down everyone with a claim.

Wouldnt it be amazing to go back and find out the truth

This is one of my favourite subjects, have read lots of books and watched loads of documentaries about it.

Having seen the evidence found in Europe by the Richard III Society members, I believe the 2 young princes were sent from the Tower of London to Europe.

Richards' name was very much maligned by the Tudors and that narrative has continued down the line to today.

Phillipa Langley is spot on that this theory will not be accepted or even considered by academics (despite evidence). She even gives examples in her book of students presenting alternative, evidence-based theories but they are rejected and they are told that to stick to the murder story if they wish to pass the subject.

I love this post.

Jacquetta of Luxembourg was an intriguing character.

@crackofdoom

Another of Philippa Gregory's novels assumes that Anne Boleyn did commit adultery.

Again, I am persuaded by Alison Weir's meticulous chronicle (The Lady in the Tower: The fall of Anne Boleyn) which details the accusations made by Cromwell matched up against times that Anne was pregnant, in confinement, yet to be churched or just plain in another part of the country than the man in question. I think that there is little likelihood of most - and probably all - of the allegations being true, but of course, it makes a good book.

I enjoy PG's books but she is a novellist first, and will pick the story over the history if she needs to do so.

There was a lot of fuss during Richard’s reign about the boys. There was open speculation they had been put to death. There was muttering about Richard’s misfortune-he lost his son and then his wife-being God’s punishment for his nephews’ murder. He was loyal to his brother but hated his wife so a convenient pre-contract was found after Edward IV’s death.

As a teenager, I loved Sharon Penman, Tey and the like but as I’ve got older and done a lot more serious reading rather than novels, it makes far more sense for it to be Richard.

More likely that some of the royals are not related to each other or not royal at all. That might unleash the cat amongst the pigeons.

I worked with someone once who was an only child, looked like her parents who said to her when she was younger like 18 that they had fertility treatment to have her. When they both died she had paperwork that she found - she wasn’t adopted but she wasn’t her parents biological child either. She’s still dealing with with her 10 years on and still not got full answers