To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

I always wonder why, if Richard didn’t have them killed and they escaped or even died of natural causes etc, why didn’t the news make it into the records at the time? If they’d died naturally or escaped, or even been killed by someone who wasn’t the acting king of England, surely we’d have evidence of it?

The fact that they just disappeared without any fuss is what makes me think Richard did it.

Henry VII wouldn’t have been king though if the boys were still alive. Richard III had Edward IV marriage to Elizabeth Woodville declared invalid, making the DCs of union illegitimate and unable to inherit. Henry reversed decision, so he could marry Elizabeth of York, which if her brothers were alive would make them the heirs. Got to love medieval history!

Wasn’t Buckingham another suspect in their deaths?

I absolutely love the Richard portrayed in The Daughter of Time and think it has some fair arguments,.. however, Alison Weir persuaded me that the analysis of the bones found indicated the right ages for a death in RIII’s reign rather than HVII’s reign.

And I agree that no one other than the monarch’s servants/courtiers could have accessed the boys in the Tower, so the act is at RIII’s door. Nothing to do with More. I don’t consider RIII a monster for it either, other kings did similar!

There have been various documentaries on this, and even a mockup 'court case', etc.
Although I have a lot of sympathies with R III, I actually believe he ordered his flunkeys to do the deed.
He was actually away at the time (was it a royal progress ie; tour?), when the children disappeared. We know this because contemporary accounts state when the children disappeared.
Henry VII actually searched the Tower of London when he arrived, looking for them, which probably would not have happened if he knew they were definitely deceased.
I think the deed was done by the person Thomas Moore identified, who said they were buried under some satirs, where later the bones of two children were found.

The refusal was by Westminster Abbey who always do refuse, mainly because they don't want to start a domino effect of mass disturbance of tombs within the Abbey. People say it was Elizabeth II who refused but she just said she agreed with the Church of England's decision.

The DNA testing would at least prove that the said bodies are his nephews which would be one step forward.

I think he had their deaths arranged.

Here you go - link to the new Rob Rinder “evidence” TV programme - https://richardiii.net/the-princes-in-the-tower-the-new-evidence/

N.B. It’s been panned by critics and im
not saying I believe it, but worth a watch

She did!! I definitely saw a programme she made last year (?) with Rob Rinder and they found contemporary documents which proved…. Drumroll….. that the boys SURVIVED! I won’t say more - I’ll try to find a link

“Does not have a horse” - exquisite. OP can we be friends?!

I think it’s interesting that the bones have been refused to be DNA tested. It makes you wonder if people do already know for sure who the bones are and don’t want the public to know.

I think Richard was capable but the last thing he was was stupid. Disappearing the boys with no bodies was the worst thing he could have done.

As for Thomas More being a reliable witness, he was 7 when Richard died and wrote his account under the Tudors. Hardly reliable.

However it happened Henry benefitted and Richard didn't. I seem to recall that Henry went on to ruthlessly take out anyone who could have challenged his throne but Richard let them live in peace.

If it was Richard then it was a monumental act of stupidity as they had already been declared, and indeed were, illegitimate.

I’m with you OP. Definitely Richard.,

How could Norfolk’s men have got to the boys without Richard’s knowledge? They were in a heavily guarded fortress.

But then why did the boys’ mother not seek the boys out after Richard’s defeat? Why would she marry Elizabeth to Henry, knowing two sons were out there? And why did she have to claim sanctuary from Richard, if she really supported and was loyal to him?

Whilst I don’t think she did. Beaufort lived at court, had the money, the power, the influence and definately the character and intelligence to have the boys killed.

She could easily have got Norfolks men to carry out the deed. ( or some other family desperate to climb the ladder). Norfolk gained great estates after their disappearances. Which the Dukes still hold today.

@BebbanburgIsMine

OP, you are Dominic Sandbrook and I claim my £5!

and I think you are correct

Going to be controversial here but I don’t believe they were killed in the Tower at all.

It wasn’t Richards way
Their mother remained loyal to Richard throughout her life and so did her daughters
Richard had many relations who could have posed a risk to his crown and yet not one ( there were 17 in total) was killed by him for his security of it
Edmund Mortimer and his brother were kept alive during Henry ivs reign whilst having a better claim to the throne. They weren’t killed just hidden away. This was more in Richard’s character and a precedent already set than having the boys killed

It’s worth noting that to kill the boys but not produce bodies is also not the way things were done in those days. Heirs or those with claims to the thrown or titles were often killed but the evidence of such was always produced. Richard could easily have said they died of the plague or sickness or anything really, he was the King.

It only became rumoured or rather rumours spread that Richard killed the boys the year that he was killed How convenient to spread such rumours at that time and yet the Princes mother ( or sister can’t remember ) still cherished a bible with Richard’s name on it….whilst the rumours spread.

So for me There’s no evidence, no bodies, no point and it was totally out of character.

Yes, which is complete nonsense.

I know I’m repeating an earlier post, but if the boys were alive, Richard would’ve produced them to quell dissent. Elizabeth Woodville wouldn't have been marrying her daughter to their murderer, and I doubt Henry and Elizabeth would’ve had the seemingly happy relationship they did if he’d murdered her two young brothers.

They were dead well before Henry VII got anywhere near the throne.

How could she have ordered it? They were in a fortress under the King’s protection. She had no power to order the murders of the King’s nephews.

Why would those unhappy with Richard rally to the cause of Henry if Edward and Richard were still alive?

If they’d been murdered by a rebellious guard, in a fortress, the nephews of the King, by his enemies, why wouldn't Richard have mentioned it? Murdering children wasn’t a good look even then, as Richard’s legacy attests.

If the boys were alive, Richard would’ve produced them to quell dissent. Elizabeth Woodville wouldn't have been marrying her daughter to their murderer, and I doubt Henry and Elizabeth would’ve had the seemingly happy relationship they did if he’d murdered her two young brothers.

They were dead well before Henry VII got anywhere near the throne.

As an historian, I'm inclined to think Rich III was the guilty one.

Fascinating character, hard to marry his reputation and character before his kingship with that of a murderer of two innocent boys but as a pp said, if you understood the context of the time and how medieval kingship worked, it is only the conclusion.

The evidence, such as it is, is also not in his favour.

Very disappointed in Rob Rinders documentary where he examined "new" evidence and concluded that Richard was innocent - the evidence he examined does not pass basic stress tests.

I won't hear a word said against my Margaret Beaufort, a much maligned woman.

That theory is generally based on the idea that the princes were still alive at the time of the Tudor accession.

Lifelong Ricardian here,

I think it was Margaret Beaufort who ordered the two princes be murdered so that her non-entity of a son could claim the throne, which he had absolute no right to.

Potential bribery of the staff and guards around the boys to have them do the deed or look the other way while someone else did.. He had supporters in England who were not happy with Richard III. And don't forget his mother Margaret Beaufort. She was veery powerful and wealthy and her husband was pretty changeable in his loyalties apparently. So it's not completely unrealistic for someone to do the crime for him.