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 always felt Margaret Beaufort had something to do with it.

Henry married Elizabeth to unite the waring faction and bring things to an end - also as queen she was unlikely to be involved in any future plots against the Tudors

He’d have killed them because they’d always be a threat. Two boys on the verge of manhood for enemies to rally around.

If he hadn’t been able t9 persuade Parliament to pass the bill delegitimising them, killing the boys wouldn’t make him king - the heir would be their eldest sister, Elizabeth.

Am I right that there is a fish and chip shop in Bosworth called the Batter of Bosworth?

Sadly it did her little good bearing in mind the Tudor dynasty. I always get confused about Henry VIIIs sisters and where their lineage ended up.

If I remember correctly a member of the clergy was the person who raised the issue of the illegitimacy of the princes. Probably didn't come forward when their father was still alive as it would have been dangerous for him to to do this.

One of them married into the Stewarts, arent they then ancestors of the current royal family or did it all go wrong when they brought in the Germans?

Margaret Tudor. Her descendants still sit on the throne.

Henry VII

Margaret Douglas, daughter of Henry’s sister Margaret Tudor. I’ve just finished listening to The Lost Tudor Princess by Alison Weir - a bit hard to keep track of who was who at times, but very very interesting.

Those Yorks came through then! One for the white rose.

Agree, OP, and with @IfYouLiveInPigeonStreet

Declaring the boys illegitimate didn’t remove that they were a potential threat.

The documentary (youtube) about digging up richard’s body in the car park was great

Ooh I didn’t know that matrilineal descendants had been traced!

The current royal family are no good for DNA testing because, as I understand it, you either need an unbroken matrilineal line (mother to daughter), or an unbroken patrilineal line (father to son). If you have one of those, you can say with certainty ‘these people share a common female/male ancestor’.

But patrilineal lines often don’t work, because there is a reasonable amount children whose biological fathers are different to the husband of their mother.

Just being able to see by a family tree that X person is related to Y person doesn’t help with DNA when the relationship goes through many generations, because there are so many different permutations it wouldn’t be useful.

I suppose just knowing whether or not the children were related to each other would be a start though.

Fellow Jodi Taylor fan here - I like her theory best 🤣🤣

And the current royal family are also descendants of Henry’s younger sister Mary.

I'm sure Henry VII became king after winning Bosworth. And I'm sure Richard III came to a nasty end at Bosworth trussed up, lying over a horse with a pike up his bum 🐴⛏️

Any Barbara Willard fans? Anyone believe her narrative in ‘A Sprig of Broom’?

I agree OP. Richard had motive, means and opportunity.

If you grabbed the throne, you didn't let your predecessor live.

Little boys grow up and come with an army to kill you so no I don't believe he waved them off to live a quiet life.

He gave the order.

Any Barbara Willard fans? Anyone believe her narrative in ‘A Sprig of Broom’?

I read it, a long time ago. If I'm remembering it correctly, she didn't invent the story, it's based on a mix of local legend and fact.

In another example of royal dna testing, both Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh were related to the Tsarina of Russia and her daughters who were murdered in ?1917.

But it was his DNA that was useful, because he and they shared a common female ancestor, whereas Elizabeth was related through her father.

He provided a sample and they found a match.

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 are very few genuinely contemporary sources, that is, from the time of Richard III. That's the problem. Most of the sources are from the time of Henry VII. Those that are from Richard's time are either foreign, or associated with known enemies of Richard. Josephine Tey goes into this.

I read the beginning of P. Langley's latest book, but it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know from Josephine Tey, so I didn't persevere with it.

I’ve always thought they probably died of natural causes and it was kept quiet for the sake of stability

It was very much in Henry VII's interest for them to disappear. He married Elizabeth of York and with the two lads out of the way, it strengthened his marriage and prospects. York/Lancaster as one.

Shakespeare wrote in Tudor times and it would not have gone down well with Elizabeth I if he named Henry. Tudor court and politicians were given Richard as a scapegoat. Propaganda.

He was already king before the princes disappeared….

Her descendants should’ve been on the throne much earlier.

After Elizabeth I died, the heir should have been her great grandson, Edward Seymour, son of her daughter’s daughter, Katherine Grey. However, he was believed to be illegitimate and so the heir was Ferdinando Stanley, another of her great grandsons.

Given that Mary I was England’s first queen, I find it amazing that the line of succession stood as:

Mary I
Princess Elizabeth
Lady Frances Brandon
Katherine Grey
Mary Grey
Margaret Stanley
Ferdinando Stanley

All those women (who died before Elizabeth I in the end) in the line of succession. Interesting how different history could’ve been.

The eldest prince was, I think, nearly 16. It wouldn’t have taken long for him to have come calling for his throne back with an army.