To think Richard III clearly murdered the princes in the tower?

[Ppejfhfhrhhfhf]

It seems quite clear to me that Richard III betrayed his nephews, murdered them and usurped their crown.

Whenever I see discussions about it on social media or wherever, people always come on and try to claim he’s a misrepresented soul who’d never have done that. If you’re someone who believes him innocent, what do you think happened to the princes?

Would also be very interested if anyone knowledgeable knows what contemporary sources were saying at the time. What did the public think had happened to their King (Edward V)?

I enjoy the Not Just the Tudors podcast: there are some good episodes about this, including 2 historians with different views discussing why this topic still fascinates after hundreds of years. Also a good interview with Philippa Gregory (about wider topics). Have never read her books but it seemed clear she’s dedicated to the research.

Another Daughter of Time fan here. I've always had my suspicions of Margaret Beaufort or someone supposedly on Richards side with murky motives. Edward V was sickly anyway...

Wrt the point upthread about Philip, Elizabeth and the Romanovs, both were related to both Tsarina Alexandra and Tsar Nicholas, the stand out being Philips blood ties to the Tsarina for DNA testing. Queen Elizabeth was related to the tsarina, the children and her own husband via descent from Queen Victoria. Elizabeth was a direct descendant of Victoria via Victoria's son King Edward VII and Philip via Victoria's daughter Princess Alice. The tsarina and the children were also descendants via Alice.

Philip was an excellent matrilineal match as a great grandson of Princess Alice via an unbroken female line: Queen Victoria of the United Kingdon-> Princess Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse -> Princess Victoria Marchioness of Milford Haven // Princess Louis of Battenberg -> Princess (Alice) Andrew of Greece - > Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh. The tsarina had the same descent via an unbroken matrilineal line; she was also a daughter of Princess Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse and therefore a sister to Princess Victoria of Battenberg. So Queen Victoria-> Alice of Hesse-> Alix (Tsarina Alexandra of Russia) -> Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia & Alexei Romanov.

Whilat other matrilineal relations were also tested to help ID Tsar Nicholas II, Philip was also related to him via all of his grandparents - just not in a perfect matrilineal line. His maternal grandfather Louis of Battenberg was nephew to wife of Romanov Tsar Alexander II - so distant blood tie there, and on his fathers side, paternal granny Olga Constantinova was the granddaughter of a Romanov Tsar, tieing Philip in that way, and his grandfather King George I of Greece was the brother of a Tsarina; his sister (Philips great auntie) Princess Dagmar of Denmark became Tsarina Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II. So, King Christian IX of Denmark-> King George I of the Hellenes (Greece) -> Prince Andrew-> Prince Philip. Therefore King Christian of Denmark -> Princess Dagmar (Tsarina Maria Feodorovna) -> Tsar Nicholas II.

Dagmar and George were also siblings of Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom. So therefore the Queen and Prince Philip- and the Queen and the Tsar and his children, are all related in this way. King Christian IX of Denmark -> Queen Alexandra of the United Kingdom -> King George V of the United Kingdom -> King George VI of the United Kingdom -> Queen Elizabeth II.

The of Kents and the rest of the royals are also related in this way as descendants of George V but if you're wondering where Michael's crazy strong resemblance to the Romanovs comes in, there's an of Russia connection on their maternal side via their mother Princess Marina, as well as further of Greece and Denmark connections via her too.

The Mountbatten connection to Philip is via Princess Victoria.

Wow. I thought my family tree got a bit complicated in places but that would be a complete plate of spaghetti to sort out!

Great post @MrsToothyBitch !

It's even more of a spaghetti when you throw in Alexandra and Nicholas being second cousins via shared descent from Wilhelmina of Baden! She was the paternal great grandmother via paternal grandmother of Nicky and the paternal great grandmother via paternal grandfather of Alix. The only meatballs in this spaghetti not directly related appear to be Queen Victoria and Tsar Nicholas II.

Queen Elizabeth was related to the Tsarina and the children via Queen Victoria, to Philip via Queen Victoria and King Christian, and to the Tsar and the children via King Christian. Philip was related to Elizabeth via Queen Victoria and King Christian, to the Tsar and the children via King Christian and Wilhelmina of Baden and to the Tsarina and the children through Wilhelmina of Baden and Queen Victoria via her daughter Princess Alice of Hesse. King Charles is therefore related to all of key players via Queen Victoria and King Christian and Wilhelmina of Baden if you back far enough! It's distant but they are all there. European royalty are the ultimate game of only connect!

I adored The Daughter of Time as a teenager and it definitely opened my eyes to the fact that history is not a settled story. But I think things have moved on since it was published. As referred to upthread, for example, the statement that there were no comments about the princes during Richard’s lifetime has now been shown to be untrue. I have moved from innocent to guilty over time, purely because it does indeed seem the most logical answer, and I’m afraid I’m not someone who think Richard was surprised by Stillington’s sudden confession of Edward’s first betrothal etc.

I do think rather than being a natural child killer he was probably moved to take the throne out of the fear of a resurgence of civil war under a protectorate, and the issues he foresaw with the Grey faction too. And that it is possible he intended to keep them with Warwick and someone misguidedly killed them. But more likely I think he probably just acted ruthlessly here.

I think I may have come across this on a previous iteration of this thread but this is really interesting new research that bolsters the credibility of the Tyrell confession. https://www.hud.ac.uk/news/2023/november/richard-iii-princes-in-tower-new-links/

Because the most feasible thing to believe was that he didn't produce the bodies because it was too late by the time he realised what a PR disaster he had created. The most likely scenario has always been that he sanctioned their death and burial whilst removing himself from the situation. He hoped they would vanish from public life with little fanfare.

It became a disaster for him and cost him support and ultimately his crown as the rumours spread that he had murdered the boys and was committing incest with his niece, Elizabeth. He was forced to openly deny this or that he had any intention of marrying her following the death of his wife.

If the boys were still alive, then he would have produced them at this point. Paraded them about in public as Henry VII did in the Lambert Simnel situation when Simnel was crowned Edward VI in Dublin by Fitzgerald and the Irish. Simnel was claiming to be Edward, Earl of Warwick and son of George, Duke of Clarence. Henry Tudor had the boy in the tower - and took him publicly to St Pauls in London, along with his sister Margaret to demonstrate that the boy in Dublin was an imposter.

The fact that Richard never produced either their bodies in a pretence of natural death, or the boys (alive) shows that by the time he realised he needed to he couldn't. There was no benefit to him in failing to produce his nephews, and therefore they must have been dead long before Bosworth - probably 2 years earlier. Those who believe they were still alive, in the Tower, handily waiting for Henry Tudor (or his mother) to have them put to death are grasping at straws that just aren't tenable.

Like @SpeakinginTongues I agree that Langley's work isn't credible or academic enough. She lacks objectivity and rigour, tending to mould facts (like a lot of people on this thread) to what she would like to believe. No serious academic historian with an expertise in this time period is convinced by the arguments and yet people are still trotting out fictional novels they've read and feel like this is the true story.

To avoid a cult of an icon developing, which happened with Henry VI (if I'm remembering my kings correctly & without reference) and which would have been an ongoing threat to the throne...Imagine the sort of devoted worship Diana Spencer received, and still does.

Also, least said, soonest mended.

I've often wondered how Richard would have dealt with the matter had he continued in his kingship. It's worth remembering that no one was actively challenging his throne on the basis of him having murdered the princes before Bosworth. As someone else said, his accession to the throne appears to have been supported by the other lords.

Re Phillips langley...what she has achieved is incredible. Locating Richard's grave, getting people to support the search and coordinating the effort was astonishing - although the role of academics in this has been sidelined, it was much more a joint effort & collaboration than the one woman against the world story.

Also, the discovery of the Gelderland document is brilliant and has done much of further Ricaridan scholarship. It isn't proof of his innocence, though, or that the princes survived and like others have said, she lacks an historian's skills, rigour and objectivity.

That’s interesting, I’ll have to read it. There’s an interesting essay in Josephine Wilkinson’s book on the Princes regarding the Tyrell confession.

Re Bishop Stillington… it does all seem a little convenient and the cynical view is certainly that it was cooked up. Though the evidence suggests that plans were underway for Edward V to be crowned which is the bit I find odd. Perhaps that was the initial intention but then they all realised a protectorate was too risky and so took steps. If that is the case then it seems to have been agreed to by the other high ranking lords and officials, again presumably to preserve the peace.

I am one of those who would like to think he didn’t do it, but I accept that he very well may have done. Rather than desperately trying to prove his innocence, I think all I really want is for the world at large to recognise that there was more to him as a man, and as a King, than the story of the Princes. I don’t think “rehabilitate” is the right word, because if he did do it then it’s horrific no matter the justification. But i firmly believe that’s there’s more to the story than “power-hungry uncle kills his nephews and seizes the throne”.

It is interesting to contemplate what kind of a King he would have been remembered for if his reign had been longer. As someone else said, Bosworth had precisely zero to do with the fate of the Princes. If there hadn’t been a (tenuous) Lancastrian heir waiting in the wings there’s every possibility that he would have had a long and settled reign, he was only in his early 30s when he died. I think there’s a fair chance the Princes would have been a footnote to his reign, if he had continued with the kind of rule he favoured as Lord of the North, rather than the only thing history remembers him for. Henry VII imprisoned the cousin of the princes, Edward of Warwick, at the age of 10, and kept him imprisoned until he was 24, when he promptly cut off his head, but I doubt that the man in the street could tell you about that.

I think Philippa Gregory is full of of bullsh!t, for the record, but I do enjoy her depiction of Margaret Beaufort as a Machiavellian matriarch (which she kind of deserves for insisting that people call her “My Lady The King’s Mother which is something of a mouthful) 😁

Just a load of Tudor propaganda. If Henry V11 knew they were dead then why didn't he have a requiem mass said for their souls.

She's a terrific writer and her books are (rightly) popular, but too many people forget that she is inventing conversations and events for dramatic licence. In The White Princess she has Henry Tudor ensuring Elizabeth of York is pregnant before he marries her, which is possible, but unlikely. She gave birth to Arthur at 35 weeks, but she had other premature babies and in fact died on her 37th birthday, the day after her baby Katherine, who was also premature.

The Other Boleyn Girl heavily implies that George (despite being portrayed as homosexual) committed incest to impregnate his sister Anne who fears Henry VIII can't give her the son she needs. Although Anne was charged with incest with her brother at her trial, historians generally accept that this was entirely invented by Henry's prosecuting councillors, probably Cromwell. George was known as a ladies man by his contemporaries, rather than being homosexual.

Someone upthread mentioned the children's skeletons that were buried in Westminster Abbey. I don't think the Royal Family will ever allow them to be DNA tested as there's nothing to be gained really. If the test shows those remains are not the princes, what do they do with them? Re-inter them in the Abbey? Bury them elsewhere? If the test proves they are the princes, what then? Quietly re-inter? Allow further testing to see if cause of death can be established? Its a minefield really, better to leave them be.

My young DN was told the story of the Princes in the Tower at school. He recounted the story to his DP and ended with "and I think they must both be dead by now" . . . .

Yes she takes quite a lot of liberties, particularly with poor old Anne Boleyn. Depicting My Lady The King’s Mother smothering Uncle Jasper with a pillow was a bit much as well! I can’t recall if that was in the book but it’s shown in the series. Katherine Howard is also done dirty as I recall.

But then I suppose if she stuck rigidly to the facts she wouldn’t be so popular. I like Alison Weir’s non-fiction as easy intros to the subject but her novels, whilst for the most part more historically accurate, are pretty tedious! Or at least the one or two I read were.

I like historical fiction as a gateway to the subject, and to bring the people and events to life, but I agree that people take it too readily as accurate. Worth it to see the ever pompous David Starkey near-apoplectic about it though!

Edit:Typo

Well that’s something we can probably all agree on! 😁

PG has a definite market and she hits her brief extremely well, but that market is not looking for historical accuracy.

I liked most of Alison Weir's Tudor Queens series, but the idea that Anne of Cleves had a secret baby and that was why Henry wouldn't consummate the marriage etc... perhaps she was just having fun, but it annoyed me!

Haha I haven’t read that one! Perhaps she’s not as historically accurate as I thought. Probably thought she needed to make Anne of Cleves more interesting, which is stupid because she’s interesting enough for being the wife savvy enough to survive Henry and get a pretty sweet deal out of it!

From the end notes I got the impression that she thought it was a plausible story but I can't quite get behind it! I do love her work though.

Yep, that's the one! 😄

I adored The Daughter of Time as a teenager and it definitely opened my eyes to the fact that history is not a settled story. But I think things have moved on since it was published. As referred to upthread, for example, the statement that there were no comments about the princes during Richard’s lifetime has now been shown to be untrue.

@Wonkypictureframe that is covered in the novel - there's a scene where Carradine comes in looking woeful and Grant thinks, oh well, it was fun while it lasted (assuming he's found evidence that Richard did have them killed). Turns out he's just found out about the rumours that were around - iirc he's seen the Croyland Chronicle. Grant puts it down to Morton having been at Ely.

Haven't read your link yet, that'll have to wait till later in the day (at least after breakfast!) :)

But there are multiple references to it that are known, from either before 1485 or shortly after. This is a random article but it gives a good summary of the key ones - a range of English and European sources. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-229X.13100

I know, I wasn't saying there weren't - only that they were mentioned in Daughter of Time, because you gave that as an example of things having moved on since the book was written.

Ah, I see. Sorry. But that is still more or less the same thing - one reference to one that is contextualised as part of the propaganda machine in the book, rather than what we can now see is a fairly wide range of credible contemporary reports.

Oh, absolutely! There were other things I noticed when rereading the book (many times over the years) - it's not all that accurate, but a great introduction.