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)?

Utter nonsense.

Contemporary sources are very clear. The boys disappeared from sight and Richard III lost a lot of support from the Yorkist political elite, his own family’s side. A source that cannot possibly be regarded as Tudor propaganda reports much suspicion that the boys were dead within months of Richard seizing the throne. The insult injury he received postmortem is very telling - stabbed in the backside while already dead. He was reviled in his own lifetime.

But then, where were they when Richard III was on the throne? They disappeared before the Battle of Bosworth.

Well and Perkin Warbeck did indeed come calling.

Killing princes, you still have pretenders with armies to defeat.

I will just leave this here.

How are you so certain? Are you an historian?

Have you seen The Lost King? Worth a watch.

I thought the boys were 9 and 12.

There was also the rumors that Richard wanted to marry his niece Elizabeth of York when his wife Anne was dying and they had no children. It's believed there was evidence there was an attachment... It seems highly unlikely Elizabeth would entertain this in any capacity if she thought Richard had killed her brothers? Or have I got that totally wrong? I know Richard came out and denied these rumours but they certainly had a relationship of sorts...

Yep same - I agree it didn’t benefit Richard for them to die as everyone would assume he murdered them. Would have been politically damaging for it to be rumoured he’d murdered his own nephews. So if they died, it would make sense for it to be hushed up. But they obviously disappeared from the record shortly after entering the Tower.

So many heirs died of natural causes back then - if you read histories of the minor Tudors and Yorks, loads of perfectly healthy kids were killed off by passing fevers. Richard’s own son died aged 10 of natural causes, so seems perfectly plausible the Princes in the Tower did too.

I can claim a degree in history but I’m not a historian.

But when a teenage king and his only brother’s care is left to a man who convinced Parliament to declare them illegitimate, declare himself king, and at the same time the boys vanish, it does seem a bit of a stretch to believe the said uncle didn’t have a hand in their murder.

This is the only bit that gives me pause. Could he have got away with killing them and declaring it natural causes? Even in medieval times, would he have got away with that if the bodies had been produced with evidence of foul play?

Richard III is interesting as a historical figure. He's been so reviled over the centuries (and still is by many) yet now there is a group of people who are almost fanatical in their desire to rehabilitate his reputation. They're a strange group, I can't work out why they're so invested.

Although Henry VII was undercover within a few hours ride of London and had secret meetings the month before the last sighting of the princes while Richard was far far away up north in York.

Henry VII was planning his invasion and gathering support from nobles who would turn against Richard III at Bosworth.

Perhaps part of the invasion planning was doing away with not just Richard, but his nephews too. A few whispers in a few ears, some palms greased, a guard bought off to assassinate the boys…very easy.

Another vote for the Josephine Tey novel. Her books are great reads in general, if of their time. Daughter of Time lays out the rationale for the murder of the Princes not to be Richard III quite well, and I don’t think there’s been much new evidence since then. The Rob Rinder programme had me shouting at the telly and if that was evidence of his critical analysis skills then I can see why he gave up being a barrister to go on the telly.

I think of Margaret Beaufort being like Olenna Tyrell in Game of Thrones.

There is insufficient evidence for any of the theories. Could have been Richard, but also could have been Margaret Beaufort, Buckingham or - as mentioned - natural causes. I was less convinced by the recent TV programme suggesting that one or both of the princes had escaped.
There has recently been a wonderful play called "Richard, My Richard" (Philippa Gregory) which looks at it from Richard's perspective, as well as putting the women back into the story. I did cry at the end!

Edward IV deposed Henry VI and had parliament declare him the legitimate heir to the throne. When Richard III deposed Edward IV he did the same thing and sought to invalidate any figure claims from Edward's children. I think at this point Richard had a living son who he would hope would inherit? Unless I've mixed up my timeline it's an incredibly complex period in history!

If they were smothered or poisoned, likely yes he could have got away with it. Lots of nobles died suddenly of illness and poison would be suspected, and also the other way round back then. The courts had access to poisons that were indistinguishable from sudden illness or just plain food that has gone off to their medical science then.

They had coroners then who did inquests, but no one would dare voice suspicion unless obvious like stab wounds or blunt force trauma to the head wound.

They were those ages when their father died. 12 and 15 by the end of Richard’s reign, if they’d been alive.

Would Elizabeth have had any choice in whether to entertain it or not?

He did have a son, Edward, who unfortunately died the year after Richard usurped the throne, and less than a year after the Princes disappeared.

“However, in a short time after, it was fully seen how vain are the thoughts of a man who desires to establish his interests without the aid of God. For, in the following month of April, on a day not very far distant from the anniversary of king Edward, this only son of his, in whom all the hopes of the royal succession, fortified with so many oaths, were centred, was seized with an illness of but short duration, and died at Middleham Castle, in the year of our Lord, 1484, being the first of the reign of the said king Richard. On hearing the news of this, at Nottingham, where they were then residing, you might have seen his father and mother in a state almost bordering on madness, by reason of their sudden grief.”

Sudden, short illness or poison? They often couldn’t tell the difference then.

But when a teenage king and his only brother’s care is left to a man who convinced Parliament to declare them illegitimate, declare himself king, and at the same time the boys vanish, it does seem a bit of a stretch to believe the said uncle didn’t have a hand in their murder”

I don’t know, I rather suspect the Woodville uncles.
Very odd behaviour from their mother, too. Agreeing to the idea that Richard should then marry their sister, thus ensuring her own position.

Strange times.

Yes, Bishop Stillington.

I don't think Richard and Elizabeth would actually have married, this wouldn't have been lawful. But I can't help but feel they had a relatively close relationship and if she thought he had murdered her brothers this seems so unlikely.

I fancy the Duke of Buckingham as the instigator of the disappearance of the Princes, as this would have supported his own dreams of gaining the throne.

He would have been aided and abetted by Margaret Beaufort, who was ever quick to see a possible advantage for her son.

A favourite theory of mine though is....
Sir Thomas More was one of the first documented to accuse Richard III of their murder, but with his links to Cardinal Morton, who supported Henry Tudor against Richard, this isn't surprising.

However, I like to think that this was a bit of bluffing from More, as he knew that the Princes had survived in hiding, in Europe, because he had one of them in his household as his Secretary.

What would the Woodville uncles have got from it? They’d have been better off with an alive and free Edward V on the throne.

Too late to go down that rabbit hole now 😄
Watch The Lost King and take a look at Richard III Society.

Great thread, though.

As I recall (from Daughter of Time), Henry VII published a list of Richard’s failings and crimes when he took the throne.

Killing the Princes wasn’t on it. You’d think that would be top of the list wouldn’t you? Unless they were still alive at that time, or it was something Henry didn’t want to call attention to.

Margaret Beaufort was an unbelievably ambitious woman to the point of fanaticism, I wouldn’t put it past her.