To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

@DrPrunesqualer

Their mother remained loyal to Richard throughout her life and so did her daughters

Do you mean Elizabeth Woodville? Who fled into sanctuary when Richard executed her brother and older son? Who agreed that her eldest daughter should marry Henry Tudor? Those aren’t really loyal acts!

(I don’t blame EW one bit for the above)

Or did you mean RIII’s mother?

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

HOWEVER... personally I'd have had them poisoned and attended to by doctors in a royal palace and claim they died of natural causes...I think Prince William is very happy that I'm not related to him😈

@DrPrunesqualer Elizabeth Woodville was a bitter enemy of Richard. In fact, one of the reasons to support the guilt of Richard was that Edward V had been nurtured under Anthony Woodville as he was governor of his household in Ludlow. Edward V was a relative stranger to Richard and Richard’s career and fortune likely to suffer as the Woodvilles were now in the ascendant.

@Genevieva regardless of whether or not Edward V and his siblings were illegitimate, RIII left no legitimate heir, so I wonder who your gran’s housekeeper thought should be king after him?!

Henry Tudor was a vile liar.

Sorry - full of typos I should have double checked.

*long memory

Thats kind and I’m sure undeserved. I find the king memory thing really interesting. My granny had a Geordie housekeeper what was a fair bit older then her (retired but came round for tea several times a week when I was a child) so probably both before WW1. She regularly told me the royals were interlopers, that Richard III was the rightful king and that the Percy family were the true rulers of Northumberland, which was a separate kingdom in its own right. The English, Welsh and Scots are do intermingled that apparently we are all descended from Edward III and are, on average, generically the equivalent of 6th cousins, so when we look back at medieval century history we are all reading about your own family. Crazy stuff.

I’m just wondering if Richard111 was on here and reading this, he’d be posting ‘should I be offended…?’ because MNetters are never quite sure if they should be or not so they always have to ask others.

Fair point well made.

Visited the battle site at Bosworth in primary school many years ago. This period of history has always fascinated me. Sadly, I don’t think there will ever be definitive proof either way. The question of who killed the princes in the tower is one of two historical whodunnits (the other being who was responsible for JFK’s assassination) that makes me wish I had a time machine!

I really like to think the boys were sent off to some rural backwater and warned, in no uncertain terms, to stay anonymous and keep away from court. But this would have been a huge risk.

It’s more likely Richard III did order their deaths. I can see why people find it hard to square this because until he seized power there wasn’t much evidence of ruthlessness. He definitely didn’t seem like a complete wrongun like his brother the Duke of Clarence. But he was obviously on a dodgy path once he imprisoned them.

Josephine Tey is a very good writer of fiction. It is a good story.
It is interesting that so little information exists about the Princes. Very few references in letters for instance. One would have expected comments from ordinary people speculating on where they were. I believe there are references to their lives before Richard took them into his protection.

Often there are many contradictory sources which cause complications of themselves.

Me too. Philippa Langley's recent research was amazing.

That’s what persuaded me that the ruling on RIII’s burial place was the correct one. Before that I’d been biased by my northern heritage and was rooting for York.

It was originally the site of a small convent, but the convent went in the reformation and the land became a car park in the 20th century. It’s like the Shelley sonnet Ozymandias.

France wouldnt have funded Henry vii if he was just going to get rid of Richard and put ed v on the throne. Henry vii wouldnt have risked taking Richard out if he thought there were two heirs waiting in the wings. Those boys were Richards insurance against others coming for him. Where as it obviously wasn't one of the big names I do think the Lancaster side arranged the deaths of those two.
Although I love the idea of the Lad in Devon less so Perkin Warbeck as it ended badly for him

I think she means killed them when he became king. His son (Henry viii) was certainly quite paranoid about any Plantagenet blood knocking about - often with just cause. The de la Poles were a thorn in his side.

Have you seen the fish and chip shop in Bosworth?

The Batter of Bosworth!!!

If RIII’s burial spot had been inside a church rather than on deconsecrated ground, excavating and testing the DNA would have been a lot more difficult.

If anyone hasn’t read John Ashdown-Hill’s book about tracing the mitochondrial DNA line to prove it was RIII, I thoroughly recommend it.

@KenAdamswe love the museum in Leicester. We made a weekend of it, City and museum one day, then Bosworth battle site the next.

Phillipa whatsit ??
she thinks she HAS shown it wasn’t Ricardo,
but I’m not convinced,
shes too biased !

I wish the bones could be tested.
Had anyone ever tried testing the remains of John Evans?

The Romanovs are not our royal family though. They are an extinct royal family. This was Philip’s personal decision, which doesn’t set a precedent for the treatment of English royal bodies. The discovery of the bones of Richard III was controversial enough. The people of York wanted his body to come home to the minster he was expanding before the Battle of Bosworth. His body was treated as treasure trove and reburied in Leicester, at the nearest cathedral, but only after a protracted legal case. People still care over 500 years on.

I think it was indeed Richard, but the Venetian ambassador was reporting gossip, because the word on the street was as important as the truth, when it comes to diplomacy and trade. Possibly more important.