To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

Yeah, we aren’t going to agree on which was the most straightforward and likely action, you and I 😀 but I am enjoying the discussion.

The aunt of the Princes was in England just once after they were born, and Richard was 6 at the time. (Edward would have been in Ludlow so unlikely to have met her.) I don’t think she could be relied upon to recognise Richard at 18/19 based on that.

Several links were posted upthread which discuss that evidence mentioned in the documentary. You may be interested to read them.

Because if you plan to murder your nephews you don't phone up (🤔) the Doctor and tell him not to bother with house calls because you're going to bump the patient off.

Or just squirrel them ( or the surviving one ) away to a more secure location. So they aren’t used for a Woodville rebellion.

or killed by Henrys family

The physician visited for a while and then stopped. Edward V arrived with Richard in London early May and, at least initially, preparations were underway for his coronation on 22 June. His brother Richard was sent to join him from sanctuary only in mid-late June.

Then things changed and RIII was the one crowned on 6 July, after the Stillington secret marriage claim.

It may be that RIII initially fully intended to crown EV but once he had convinced him to take his advice rather than his mother’s. Or that he intended to keep the boys in the Tower indefinitely but comfortably. In either case, EV would have a physician for the first few weeks at least - cynically, it would demonstrate good faith to Elizabeth Woodville too!

There is some indication in the records of a plot to rescue the princes in late July, and - if RIII had been planning on keeping them
in the tower but not killing them - this might have been a prompt to him to be more ruthless.

Agree
Why bother treating Edward at all

I don’t believe he did want them dead

The evidence of a physician visiting I know about, but if Richard wanted the boys dead, why would a doctor be visiting or to stop people saying he wasn’t looking after the boy’s?

Manflu.

‘Undercook the chicken and not wash my hands’ - username Beenthroughit 🥴 (just joking )

The eldest had problems with his lowest jaw / teeth. Evidence of physician visiting him and yes he could have died from that

No one really knows even now there are a number of theories. It may well have been some form of respiratory virus (bit like COVID) as it affected the rich in significant levels. What seems slightly strange is that it first arrived at the end of the Wars of the Roses - so often blamed on the French mercenaries HVII brought over with him but there doesn't seem to be a recorded instance of it in France. Those mercenaries were apparently the dregs of the (very insanitary) French prisons (offered their freedom to go and fight) so who knows what they might have been infected with.

Another view is that it might have been some form of anthrax.

I’ve always wondered what it actually was and what the modern equivalent of sweating sickness would be.

@DrPrunesqualer was not thinking of the plague or sweating sickness particularly, but there were things that now could be cured with an antibiotic or something, children died later on when plague and sweating sickness were no more, you can die of a dental abscess and someone mentioned one of them had problems with his teeth ( but obviously 2 children wouldn't die of that at the same time) just the point that children and teens did die , prince Arthur, Edward VI, Henry Fitzroy all died young.
If I had to murder them I'd maybe undercook the chicken and not wash my hands....

The sweating sickness arrived in 1485 around the time of the Battle of Bosworth

London wasn’t particularly affected by the plague in the late 1480s, after the last one of 1478/80.

So they / or one of them could have died from the sweating sickness but they would have to have survived into 1485. Henry vii coronation certainly would have spread the disease

People will no doubt disagree as any evidence in Britain of life or death appears destroyed. But the continental evidence especially from the Netherlands, with additional corroborative evidence from (for example) the aunt of the Princes, completely supports your assertion.
You also probably know that all of these documents have been verified as genuine.

I'm very tempted by the play. I also loved the DOT as a teenager and did a unit on this period at university as a result. By the end of the course, I think most of us thought Richard had done it or they'd died of an illness.

I have read that they were. Uries a long way u der the stairs, and we must remember that the tower has v3n used for burials for centuries, I read that whenever someone dug to plant a plant or whatever there were fragments of bone.
If the bones are much older than the time period we are thinking of then they could be anyone, and for sure the DNA would be interesting . It would shut people up about demanding their DNA is tested. I hope they are and they turn out to be from a totally different period and are shown to be people from somewhere far awY
Gum disease, on its own bit a definite thing, am sure plenty other people had gum disease.
Tbh if I was ordering them to be killed id either have them smuggled out of the tower at night and have them towed to miles away and have them buried there or have them buried at sea.
Or is wait until there was some sort of epidemic or disease outbreak and say they died of dysentery or suchlike, or falling off a horse or accidentally being shot with an arrow, so many children died that sort of thing would not have been too suspicious, especially if they had a royal burial

Not necessarily as again upthread it’s been mentioned. Delegitimising Edward and Richard didn’t mean they could legitimately become King. There’s precedent noted upthread.

Yy. To quote Lord Peter Wimsey: when you know how, you know who.

Means and opportunity come before motive, and RIII had all of them.

Motive but no access. The DoT is an entertaining novel but simply does not stand up to actual historical research.

This has been addressed upthread. Any child could be delegitimised and relegitimised at will, as needed. Delegitimising them was a temporary extra measure but would not hold against any concerted Woodville or Beaufort or any other later challenge to reclaim the throne.

The comment copied by Sheila from a previous poster
no one would suspect a woman .

Oh yes they would! Women were accused of treason and were extremely proficient in scheming and plotting to their families benefit. They may not have fought on the battlefield but never assume they weren’t key player's.

Henry Tudor and/or his mother, Margaret Beaufort (perfect cover, known to the boys, no one would suspect a woman)

Was Margaret Beaufort known to the boys? Edward V had been in Ludlow for most of his life (since he was about 3) and I don’t think MB ever served as one of Elizabeth Woodville’s ladies or anything, where she might have got to know Richard a little (though even then, royal children were not at court much and were at “nursery palaces” farther from the dangers and plagues of London) .

If you think Henry Tudor did it, then you presumably think the boys died after Bosworth, as Henry was in France until then.

Oh, and 20 pages into a thread about RIII… The Daughter of Time has been mentioned a fair bit already!

Although

Fitzroy was never given titles that would suggest he was ever realistically considered for the Kingship
His blood wasn’t blue enough given his mothers status and it’s all about the bluer the blood the better
Lineage was everything
Henry 8 came after this period and whilst I’m aware things don’t change that quickly illegitimate kids were before Henry and during his reign not acceptable heirs.

Had there been no legitimate boys at all Henry would have left the crown straight to Mary. She held the title Princess of Wales ( up to Edward’s birth I believe it was dropped sometime after )

the fact Henry vii burnt all evidence referencing the Edward iv marriage prior to marrying his daughter is extremely significant in trying to make her birth legitimate and increase his claim on the throne.

Thanks for coming back
Ive never been to that Theatre either but sounds like it’s worth a go.
Thanks for the heads up on seating too. I like a circle seat so good to know the seats are well tiered

Perhaps mumsnetters should don a purple ribbon so we can all wave at each other thanks to this thread 😁

There were so many at the time who had motive, anyone who had a claim to the throne could have done it and they weren't short of claimants, Henry Tudor and/or his mother, Margaret Beaufort (perfect cover, known to the boys, no one would suspect a woman), Duke of Buckingham. I personally think Richard was innocent, Tudor propaganda would want to paint him as a villain but if you read contemporary accounts of his character, i don't think he would have done it. Read The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey, its about an detective who look into Richard III's alleged crimes from is sick bed, it's a short but great read.