Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

664 replies

HenryTudor1485 · 23/07/2025 23:37

He’s undergone a bit of a reappraisal recently but I’m not having it. He was a wrong un.

He clearly had his nephews killed. He had motive, means and opportunity. The dates when they “disappeared” all add up.

He done the crime. He never did the time (unless you consider being defeated in battle and being hacked to death “time”).

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
BruFord · 24/07/2025 01:36

@MyWarmOchreHare I know that they weren’t seen after 1483, which does that suggest Richard did away with them. Henry also had every reason to do it if they were still alive somewhere in 1485.

Those bones from the Tower really should be DNA-tested.

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 01:24

BruFord · 24/07/2025 01:07

I’ve wondered about this. Richard’s only legitimate heir died in 1484 but perhaps he had the princes killed before then assuming that his son would succeed him?

If he didn’t, it would def. have made sense for Henry VII to get rid of them as they were a major threat to him.

How could Henry VII have accessed them?

BruFord · 24/07/2025 01:07

I’ve wondered about this. Richard’s only legitimate heir died in 1484 but perhaps he had the princes killed before then assuming that his son would succeed him?

If he didn’t, it would def. have made sense for Henry VII to get rid of them as they were a major threat to him.

nocoolnamesleft · 24/07/2025 00:51

Well, I guess we could just jump back in time and see what happened. Oh hang on a minute, that was already a major plot point in one of Jodi Taylor's books...

Elliania · 24/07/2025 00:48

There was very interesting documentary not too long ago where they found evidence of a will which bequeaths an item that very well could have belonged to one of the princes to a descendent. With a bit more digging they found out that the will belonged to the family of Sir James Tyrell who was a member of Richard III's household and was often named as a strong suspect for killing the boys.

https://www.paramount-mediahub.co.uk/press-releases/breakthrough-in-centuries-old-princes-in-the-tower-mystery-revealed-in-new-channel-5-documentary

Breakthrough in centuries-old Princes in the Tower mystery revealed in new Channel 5 Documentary - Paramount

https://www.paramount-mediahub.co.uk/press-releases/breakthrough-in-centuries-old-princes-in-the-tower-mystery-revealed-in-new-channel-5-documentary

XWKD · 24/07/2025 00:44

The evidence isn't reliable enough to pin it on anyone. Convincing books don't alter that fact.

kittenkipping · 24/07/2025 00:39

I’m neither historian nor expert. But I am certain Richard had them killed.

researchers3 · 24/07/2025 00:37

HenryTudor1485 · 23/07/2025 23:52

It’s a shame Crimewatch is no longer a thing. A would’ve liked to see a reconstruction.

The suspect is a white male, aged between 500 and 600, wearing a suit of armour. Does not have a horse.

😁

SarfLondonLad · 24/07/2025 00:32

I am certain Richard III murdered the boys.

I think he did it (or had it done) for the perfectly valid reason that if he hadn't killed them, then Edward V (or to be exact his Woodville uncles) would have had Richard himself executed in pretty short order.

Kill or be killed, basically.

Having said that. I also think that if he had won Bosworth he would have been a far better king than Henry VII turned out to be.

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 00:31

NewAgeNewMe · 23/07/2025 23:57

Another operator. Margaret Beaufort. Formidable woman. Could easily believe she’d give orders for the boy’s deaths.

She didn’t have the power to order their deaths. Only one man did.

NotBraveSoul · 24/07/2025 00:29

Yup, it was Richard.

Anyone claiming it was Margaret Beaufort or Henry VII clearly misunderstands the historical context of the period.

@TheOtherAgentJohnson The Rest is History podcast did a deep dive! It was very interesting but nothing new, good for an intro to the topic.

Manchesteruser · 24/07/2025 00:29

EveryDayisFriday · 24/07/2025 00:08

Where's that lady who was R3s biggest fan 🥰🤗 and found his body. If anyone can prove his innocence, it's her.

Philippa Langley. I don't believe either of the princes were murdered in the tower. I think Edward V moved to Coldridge in Devon - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.melstridemp.com/news/mp-hears-how-edward-v-could-be-buried-his-constituency-coldridge&ved=2ahUKEwjsq4vLkNSOAxWjZ0EAHTiaICQQFnoECEcQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw0WXpdA_8SKlLW3W45JSUSy

and lived as John Evans and Richard of York moved to France, then led a rebellion against Henry Vii having been brought up as Perkin Warbeck.

https://www.google.com/url?opi=89978449&rct=j&sa=t&source=web&sqi=2&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.melstridemp.com%2Fnews%2Fmp-hears-how-edward-v-could-be-buried-his-constituency-coldridge&usg=AOvVaw0WXpdA_8SKlLW3W45JSUSy&ved=2ahUKEwjsq4vLkNSOAxWjZ0EAHTiaICQQFnoECEcQAQ

SarfLondonLad · 24/07/2025 00:29

Standardpain · 23/07/2025 23:42

My personal opinion is that it was Henry V11 who was responsible for the Princes being murdered.

Have you ever read Josephine Tey's book The Daughter of Time? It's a fiction book where a recuperating policeman investigates the murders in the tower. Many years since I read it but it's very interesting and uses historical evidence.

The Daughter of Time is historically very doubtful (altho's I agree it's a great read).
Tey's reluctance to take Sir Thomas Moore as a reliable witness is not something historians would necessarily accept.

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 00:25

NewAgeNewMe · 23/07/2025 23:55

I always thought most likely Henry VII. And that he smeared Richards’s name.

How could he have accessed the boys?

LemondrizzleShark · 24/07/2025 00:14

They might have died of natural causes (or been helped to die of natural causes - shit food, cold draughty rooms, and lack of medical attention, etc). But they clearly died during Richard’s reign.

dapsnotplimsolls · 24/07/2025 00:11

You would say that, wouldn't you? 😁

AtomHeartMotherOfGod · 24/07/2025 00:11

Overall I think you're correct, but what I love most is how you're suddenly resolved to set things to rights 😂

AnSolas · 24/07/2025 00:08

HowToTrainYourDragonfruit · 23/07/2025 23:48

I come to mumsnet for this incisive analysis of current affairs

🙄😀🫢🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

EveryDayisFriday · 24/07/2025 00:08

Where's that lady who was R3s biggest fan 🥰🤗 and found his body. If anyone can prove his innocence, it's her.

WarrenTofficier · 24/07/2025 00:06

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 00:01

No lackey would murder the King/the King’s nephews without orders to do so.

Show quote history

I'm assuming a 'humm it would be so much easier if the boys weren't around, I'd be King in my own right and could do XYZ' has been interpreted as 'who will rid me off these troublesome nephews' when it wasn't intended that way, but short of a time machine we'll never know.

CalicoPusscat · 24/07/2025 00:01

Umm...I have no idea.

Doubt it will ever be 'proved'. Bloodthirsty lot, weren't they.

MyWarmOchreHare · 24/07/2025 00:01

WarrenTofficier · 23/07/2025 23:51

I've always thought some lacky did it thinking it would curry favourite with Richard but that Richard was horrified rather than happy, not because he particularly cared but because the boys death put him in a tight spot.

No lackey would murder the King/the King’s nephews without orders to do so.

BlueyNeedsToFuckOff · 23/07/2025 23:59

WarrenTofficier · 23/07/2025 23:51

I've always thought some lacky did it thinking it would curry favourite with Richard but that Richard was horrified rather than happy, not because he particularly cared but because the boys death put him in a tight spot.

Yes, I’ve always assumed it was kind of a Becket-like situation

NewAgeNewMe · 23/07/2025 23:57

Another operator. Margaret Beaufort. Formidable woman. Could easily believe she’d give orders for the boy’s deaths.

Swipe left for the next trending thread