To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

True but they used Prince Philip's DNA to identify the Romanovs. So precedent was there.

The Venetian ambassador wrote home that most people in London believed that the King had eliminated his nephews, having first declared them illegitimate and so not eligible for the throne. Richard was ‘ making assurance doubly sure.’

The Venetian ambassadors were renowned for the accuracy of their reports, because the Venetian State was interested in trade ( money) , not politics.

She was right not to. Otherwise her own bones are fair game.

I think he possibly did, but I don’t think he was a wrongun because I don’t think you can apply modern morality to this issue. It came towards the end of the Wars of the Roses. Their father seized power that wasn’t rightfully his, so arguably the throne was fair game. Richard was doing an excellent job running the north of England, where he was well liked for being fair and just. England deserved the kind of stability he could offer that a boy king with a contested claim couldn’t.

Young boys were no use to her.Henry was going to be king, best get her daughter married pronto.Totally practical as you had to be back then, no room fir sentiment.

I think it was definitely Richard. I loved Daughter of Time as a teenager but read it again as an adult and realised it was yet another of Tey’s weird convictions that if someone has a nice face, or brown eyes, or some other weird Victorian thing, they can’t really be a murderer. And a complete wishful misunderstanding of women’s lives and options at that time, which is pretty odd from someone who wrote so much history.

Really? I thought that programme was quite pants - IIRC, it was about some relative of Tyrell’s inheriting some necklace.

Yy - agree it is part of the picture - it’s the part of AW’s book that convinced me the most, but there’s a lot more in there about where the key players were on different dates etc.

Here's the episode of Noble Blood:
https://podcastaddict.com/noble-blood/episode/186370695

God why did you have to start your own thread about this, couldn’t you join one of the other many threads popping up about this?!!

😉

I will say though the recent programme I saw with Rob Rinder and someone else, did cast doubt in my mind about this. I cant remember which bit of killer evidence they seemed to find that suggested it wasnt Richard but remember thinking it did cast some doubt.

I agree OP, Richard had motive, means and opportunity. He ordered it done. The propaganda was his- the nonsense about them being illegitimate etc.

Im not sure you can tell that much and that would assume that they were killed right at the beginning of his reign compared to right at the end, no one knows

He is guilty though but that is not hard evidence of that, its part of the picture.

@MargaretThursday see my answer above. As you have urged others to read TDoT with an open mind, I urge you to read Alison Weir’s book with a similarly open mind,

IIRC, it was to do with the measurements of the bones in the staircase being of a 12 and 9 year old rather than a 15 and 12 year old (might have those ages slightly wrong) - agree that if the bones were adult, three years wouldn’t be enough to differentiate

Do you honestly believe that scientists can tell that someone was killed in 1483-1485 as opposed to 1485-1509 (and would have to be the early end of that)?

Really?

Oh he so did it. And while a terrible terrible crime, as a medieval king it was almost something he had to do. Like something obvious he would do. That’s why Elizabthe sought sanctuary.

The suggestion they survived was to undermine the Tudor legitimacy but really there is no prospect that happened. Whether he actually had them physically murdered or let them die in the tower I don’t know but they didn’t come out of there alive during Richard’s reign.

Indeed, particularly as the body found under the car park was DNA tested and proved to be Richard.

Why not allow DNA testing of the bones in the tower?

Although I do think he did it, I dont think you can test or examine bones to that degree of accuracy to determine whether something happened in Richards reign or Henry's, Richard only ruled for 3 years.

I totally agree with you. And that’s a great book!

Wheres the poll?

Of course you are not unreasonable. He's guilty. Its all over his face.

Philippa Gregory’s ‘The White Princess’ suggests that Richard had nothing to gain as he had had the princes declared illegitimate whereas Henry vii/Margaret Beaufort framing Richard turned people against him.
Absolutely horrific whoever did it

Much as I love TDoT and much as it initially made me a Ricardian, it is a well researched novel from more than 70 years ago, not the last word on the subject.

I studied medieval history at uni and have had a lot of time for Richard III ever since. There's much to admire about him.

But I still think that he ordered the murder of the Princes in the Tower.

I agree with a pp that episode on The Rest is History podcast is worth listening to.

There is no evidence that the boys were not alive when Henry took over- and Richard was dead.

There were no rumours, no burials, no announcement from Henry upon arrival at the tower.
And it would have been a great bonus for Henry to announce that.

Go and read Daughter of Time with an open mind.