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)?

There really wasn't any doubt about it. People love a good conspiracy theory, but the only logical and possible explanation is that Richard had them killed. They were a threat to him as a possible rallying point for Edward IVs supporters as long as they were alive.

And it really isn't credible to think that either Margaret Beaufort or Henry Tudor had them killed. It's very clear that neither of these boys were in the Tower after Bosworth, although their cousin Edward, Earl of Warwick certainly was.

Contemporary sources believed Richard killed them. It cost him support at Bosworth and indirectly caused his death. There was no benefit to him not producing them, if they were still alive, to refute all the rumours that were going around. No contemporary source ever accused Henry Tudor of killing them.

This is a much later 'conspiracy'. At the time it was very clear that the nobility of England, both Yorkist and Lancastrian believed that Richard had disposed of them.

The 'documentary' by Philippa Langley and Rob Rinder is not accurate in many ways. She is not an accredited historian and is a member of the Richard III society. A lot of the evidence she presented to Rob Rinder has no basis in fact. No serious Tudor historian accepts that this is anything other than wishful thinking with a lot of hypothesis that is wildly unlikely.

That programme was the biggest pile of crap. Completely failed to consider that just because a document was genuinely written in the correct time period, doesn’t mean its contents are reliable. Total guff.

It would be very easy to prove with a DNA test on the bones found were the accounts of the murder ordered by Richard III says the murdered princes would be found

Whilst I'm not an historian, it seems to me most likely that it was Colonel Mustard, with a candle stick, in the library.

I may be wrong, but I think there's certainly a strong case for it.

The Josephine Tey book isn't a novelisation of the past. It's a story of a detective on bed rest who is bored witless so someone gets him into researching history and solving it as a historical crime. The fictional bits are only the modern parts.

Brilliant book, by the way. It convinced me.

This, he could have staged anything.

Yes. I blame the Tudors. Richard was already king he didn't need to kill them.
(Philippa Gregory fan)

Oh goodness me I needed that giggle today, thank you! 🤩

Thank you! Yes, it was. Most of the things she produced as 'startling new evidence' to Rob Rinder who was wide eyed and half convinced by it all (because he has little background knowledge) were things that were already known - and she hid, or was unaware of, the propaganda behind them.

She trotted out arguments that weren't new and that historians have refuted for years.

The Josephine Tey book is lovely, albeit fictional. If nothing else, you can scratch your head about patients smoking in a hospital ward.

I think I bought some of her other books in a bundle on Audible for not much money.

The Tey book is interesting but not ground breaking. The documentary mentioned upthread is I think the one associated with Langley 's book (her of the car park discovery and Richard fanatic). I watched it but thought there were a lot of suppositions and IFs going on.

I've studied this a fair bit and whilst it's true that R was villified by the Tudors its still highly unlikely that the constable of the tower would have allowed access to anyone other than on Richards orders. Additionally, the discovery that he DID have scoliosis puts the kybosh on the idea that the "crookback villain" thing was total nonsense.

I think his early life proves he was a loyal and capable soldier, dedicated to the good of the realm and may have justified removing his nephews (who he believed were illegitimate anyway) by allowing him to reign rather than a child that would have been disastrous, or worse, their Woodville relations reigning through him. The previous fifty years had been a divisive nightmare, led to the loss of most of the gains from Agincourt and a competent, experienced adult on the throne was the best move.

Same. I'd had a dream about Richard and Edward, which I know sounds completely insane, but I had, and my mum recommended The Daughter of Time to me, and it's still one of my favourite books.

I know I must subconsciously have known how different Richard and Edward were from each other, but my dream surprised me in its apparent accuracy about their looks, is all I can say!

Just put this on.

I think they were exiled, makes more sense than any murder conspiracy, and their ‘keeper’ was bought off. Also exile was a massive thing back then. What would kids their age know about their own destiny if they were told otherwise and repeatedly kept in the dark?

A proper modern examination of the bones in Westminster abbey would be interesting

I second this. The arguments are all there, and it’s a smashing read.

This. He had far more to gain.

The bones are quite contaminated, been handled by a lot of people and were actually on a rubbish tip at one point.

The Queen wouldn't allow them to be disturbed, no idea what Charles thinks

I went to the Richard III centre in Leicester, and came out convinced Margaret Beaufort did it in order to get her son on the Throne. This may have been as a result of biased information at the ( excellent) museum!

I've always wondered if Edward V died of natural causes in the Tower as his doctor (Dr Argentine) said that he was visiting him frequently and he had resigned himself to death. It would have been such a nightmare for Richard to announce that he had died shortly after an attempted rescue when the boys were taken further into the Tower and never seen again as no one would believe he didn't arrange it himself. Less clear what happened to his brother though -maybe it was something catching......... Perhaps Richard thought that in time people would forget/stop asking awkward questions but then Bosworth came along and Henry VII couldn't find out what had actually happened in the immediate aftermath of the battle.

I've often wondered if the Tyrell confession was a way of tying up a loose end so that no one else could pretend to be the princes. Tyrell's family don't seem to have suffered too badly after his death (all his property would have reverted to the crown as a condemned traitor and the family would then need to rely on Henry's generosity as to what he'd let them keep and generosity was not a trait Henry was well known for). It's possible that Henry agreed to be uncharacteristically generous in return for a confession to tie up the loose ends.

All supposition of course but as likely as many of the other theories floating around and certainly less far fetched than the rather bizarre Holbein code suggestion.....

The joshephine Tey book is only 0.75p on kindle

The problem with watching the documentary, is that unless you have a very clear knowledge of 15th Century European history that a lot of the 'evidence' she presents sounds interesting - but to serious historians is a load of bunk and has met with major criticism.

If you are interested in a historian's appraisal of her documentary read the article I've linked below. It describes the documentary as 'manipulative and dishonest' which is was. You need, for example, a very clear understanding that Margaret of Burgundy was the elder sister of Richard III and loathed Henry Tudor as his killer and usurper. She would have never, ever seen or met her nephews - but was willing to 'recognise' anyone as them if it would cause problems to Henry VII.

Maximilian, the Holy Roman Emperor, is her son in law and as such, also has political reasons for 'believing' or funding things.

https://aspectsofhistory.com/author_interviews/the-princes-in-the-tower-david-pilling-on-the-new-evidence/

When we went to the Tower of London, my DS asked a Beefeater why The Queen wouldn't allow the bones to be tested. He said it was because she didn't want them to be disturbed and they should be allowed to rest in peace. He was obsessed with the Princes in the Tower but we weren't allowed to talk about it because DS 2 was terrified by the story! Probably because he was one of 2 brothers!

Removed from the succession at the behest of Richard III.

No. He didn't.