To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

Again, access!!! They were held "close, in the inner confines of the Tower" to quote a contemporary source. They weren't accessible to anyone except with the highest authority.

They were ruthless times all round but, to me, it seems more likely that Henry VII was behind it. The Tudors seemed rather fond of offing any Plantagenet potential rival.

He did it, and he was right to do it.

I always thought Richards was innocent, he was willing to crown the eldest , till he was told they were bastards.
It makes more sense that Henry or his mother did it, as Edward had a lot of children and Henry needed a clear path to kingdom, he married their sister to seal the deal and was a bit under his mother’s thumb.

I don't think he did it because at the time of their supposed deaths they had been declared illegitimate, so they were no political threat to Richard. I do think he wanted to be king instead of Edward, and was either relieved when evidence of his illegitimacy was found, or even ordered someone to discover or plant some evidence, but not because he was power-crazed or wished Edward any harm, but simply because the country was at risk of war and this was a time when kings were expected to be military leaders. Richard was an experienced fighter who had been leading armies into battle when he was still a teenager. Even his detractors agree that he fought bravely at Bosworth. Edward does not seem to have had any military training (yet?) and would have been a sitting duck. I think if Richard had killed them or even known they were dead, he would have come up with some story or excuse to explain their absence. He doesn't seem to have done that, just assumed that everyone would accept they were still in the Tower for their own safety. We also know from contemporary records that Edward was visited by a doctor in the Tower, so someone was making some effort to ensure he was well looked after.

Henry on the other hand hoped to strengthen his credentials by marrying Elizabeth, a member of the previous line, but that would only really work if she was declared legitimate. But if she was legitimate, then so were her brothers and that would make them a threat. My money is on someone appointed by either Henry or his mother Margaret having killed them.

There's quite a funny bit in the Sunne in Splendour towards the end when Penman realises she's going to have to deal with the disappearance of the Princes. Someone (Hastings I think) says to Richard something along the lines of "Got some bad news old chap. The princes have disappeared" and there is momentary disquiet and it's then rather glossed over. Richard says something like "Gosh, that's such a puzzle, where could they have got to?"

Disclaimer : it's years since I read it, but I remember it amusing me.

YY - the record would hardly say "raising an army to support that commoner Warbeck" 😀

As I recall the 'killer evidence' was in the financial records of a European court raising funds for an invasion by Perkin Warbeck (or a.n. other pretender) and refering to them as the Prince but this doesn't prove they were the prince merely that the European Queen believed them to be (or found it convenient to do so).

But if he kills the "usurper" Richard and there is a rightful king waiting why then would the country accept Henry vii a lad from Wales who lived in france for most of his life as another usurper. Rather then the rightful son of the beloved old king He wouldnt have won by conquest as there is a king thats not been conquered. Had the princes still been alive Henry vii would not have attacked. Henry had the most to gain

I am friends with a beefeater and his family and have been to stay in the tower with them. Even those who live and breathe this and live in the tower today have vastly differing opinions on this.
i think it was most likely Richard, but there were varying opinions in the beefeaters I spoke to around whether they were killed and who by and also if someone helped them escape.
Sadly unless the bones are tested I don’t think we’ll ever know.

If you were a medieval king, who has usurped the throne it's the obvious solution.

This is the long and the short of it. Richard had the most to gain and the most to lose.

Yes but James Duke of Monmouth was the true heir after Charles 11 and lots of the West Country tried to make that happen...as a boy I remember Dad and his friends talking about it, several were still bitter about Judge Jeffries

I think there's one on the Dark History podcast

It could also point to the idea that someone trying to curry favour killed them like Thomas a'Beckett.

Why would a man using Lancastrian forces put a York on the throne when he could take it himself? And he absolutely would have risked defeating Richard regardless of York heirs as he had support from both Lancaster and York.

That’s not an argument in favour of the boys’ survival but nor is it an argument against.

Agreed. Also Shakespeare wrote what the Tudors wanted to hear-doesn't Thomas Moore have a hand in the history somewhere? Can't remember as I read Tey about 50 years ago. The Daughter of Time is a great book.

Agreed. There were some fairly amusing threads at the time Richard was dug up from his car park resting place. The general consensus was that Philippa Langley is somewhat unhinged and her obsession strays well into unhealthy territory. They made a mock up of his face using his skull and Philippa gazed at it adoringly and murmured "That's not the face of a murderer" and stroked it. I'm not sure she's the most objective source.

It’s clearly in the genes:))

I remember on my history degree asking my (very eminent) Professor what he thought. His reply in essence was "Richard totally did it".

No - RIII issued a denial that he would marry EoY. But certainly he would have married again if he had won bosworth, probably a foreign princess or similar. He was early 30s so certainly could have had more kids.

My comment, though, was addressed at a PP and someone’s views as of this century.

She's tried and it's an appalling mess. She's not a scholar. The biggest issue is access..the Tower constable would not be handing the keys over to anyone without kings orders. If I'm being charitable, I'd argue that he did it to ensure security of an adult on the throne and not a minor after the instability of the previous thirty odd years but other than that... Everyone always leaps to the Tudor propaganda argument but I feel that somewhat went awry with the discovery of the scoliosis skeleton which shows the "twisted hunchback" of Shakespeare was at least partially correct. Richard III supporters have fallen prey to a lot of romanticised rubbish in Tey and Sharon Penman's books. Good reads but not remotely credible IMHO.

Didn't he want to marry Elizabeth of York himself? Presumably he thought he'd have a few heirs there.

Yeah, I do wonder if the original plan was a quiet poisoning and pretence of a natural death and displaying the bodies, but something went wrong, meaning the poison left suspicious traces or was ineffective and a visibly violent method used.

Well since my "formidable operator" mother in law was a Beaufort, I can well believe this.

DS1 loves all this stuff and was fascinated by it but DS2 was absolutely horrified by it for years- to the point where he'd start crying if we talked about it. Turns out he'd had nightmares about it after Horrible Histories or something (he is obviously one of 2 brothers!) so we couldn't do anything remotely related for ages as he'd have a meltdown! Once he got older, we went to the Tower of London and the Leicester exhibition. After going to Leicester, I was convinced Margaret Beaufort had the boys killed, but that Phillipa Langley is an absolute nutcase, and I'm convinced only Richard could have done it.