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 agree Duke of Buckingham is involved, but think he was under orders..

Duke of Buckingham and Henry VII met in August 1483 between Plymouth and London (Henry was anchored there for weeks). The princes disappeared September 1483. Buckingham caught and executed by Richard III…

Richard’s son Edward, dies suddenly at Middleham while his parents are in Nottingham in April 1484.

Henry VII invades in 1485….how convenient for him that the direct male heirs are already dead. Henry then kills every cousin, every Plantagenet to secure the throne for his children.

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

That’s who he based it on, isn’t it?

When people say Richard did it, they don't literally mean HE did it, just his power ordered it. Surely no one believes he would have done it himself 🫤

"killing the boys wouldn’t make him king - the heir would be their eldest sister, Elizabeth."

No, back then males took precedence over females in the succession to the throne, regardless of whether or not they were younger than their sisters. That was only recently changed, during Elizabeth II's reign.

Yep, and even the younger brother of a king took precedence over a kings eldest daughter.

Yes, but once the two boys were dead there were no brothers. Daughters of a monarch take precedence over brothers of the monarch in the line of succession.

The Venetian Ambassador to the English court at the time reported that that there was a great deal of speculation and unease about the ‘disappearance’ of the two Princes, and that it was rumoured ‘in court and in tavern’ that their Uncle had a hand in this. Venetian Ambassadors were notoriously well informed and very thorough in their reports on the states they were posted to.

Also I think the old adage ‘cui bono’ , ‘who benefits’ is relevant; the future Henry VII was at the time a penniless fugitive and exile, no one at the French Court thought much of his chances of ever going back to England, let alone acceding to the throne. It is unclear how he could arrange for the murder of two important prisoners in the most secure fortress of a foreign power, or how his mother (living in retirement with her third husband) could have managed this either.

Henry Tudor’s position only changed with the disappearance of the Princes, and the usurpation ( sic) of Gloucester.

I remember how Gloucester’s modern advocates firmly denied that he was a ‘hunchback’ , that was supposed to be an invention by Thomas More, as well. Until the discovery of the body, which demonstrably suffered from scoliosis.

This isn’t true. Daughters of a monarch came before brothers.

it was rumoured that Richard was intending to marry the Princess Elizabeth (his niece) to secure his position, even though this would have required a Papal dispensation. Actually, Henry Tudor did marry her when he had killed Richard and taken over the State, to unite the two houses of Lancaster and York (hence the heraldic symbol of the double rose).

Surprisingly it seems to have been a very happy marriage, certainly he was devastated by her early death, did not remarry and they are buried side by side.

Not in practice. Usually, a civil war is fought and the hieress loses. Matilda, eldest daughter of Henry I and sole heir. Henry I even made all the lords swear allegiance to her before his death. She fought for 19yrs and lost the throne to Stephen of Blois who claimed good old uncle Henry changed his mind on his deathbed…and he won.

GRR Martin you mean? I’ve read the books and know that he plundered mediaeval history for characters and plot points. I always assumed the characters were at best amalgams of various aspects of real life people rather than direct inspirations.

Oh and about the inheritance, Richard passed the Act of Titulus Regius , which proclaimed that the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, the boys’ mother , was invalid, as Edward had been pre-contracted to another woman(conveniently dead). An extremely old Bishop was produced who claimed to have witnessed the contract, though he hadn’t mentioned it to anyone for twenty years. . So all the children of the Woodville marriage were ‘bastards’ and could not inherit the throne. The Lords Bastard (sic) were hidden away, and Richard became the ‘rightful’ heir to the throne.

Not many people believed in the pre contract at the time, but you don’t argue with the King (or at least, not until there is a viable opponent).

This reminds me a bit of Jeremy Potter's novel A Trail of Blood - it's set during the Reformation. A monk is despatched to learn if the Princes survived (any halfway legitimate heir would be better than Henry VIII by then) and eventually learns that the younger boy did ... any more info would be spoilers!

The couple, William III (of Orange- Dutch) and Mary II were supposed to be co-rulers as Mary II was the daughter of James II, but guess who really ruled?

The beginning of your post is pretty much what Lucy Worsley said when asked at a talk of hers I went to.

There is insufficient evidence either way to be confident.

It’s fascinating though.

The thing that gets me is that the image of Richard the child-murdering usurper does not fit at all with what is known of his character before his brother, Edward IV’s, death.

The other brother, George of Clarence, betrayed them at least twice and ultimately died for it. Richard was steadfast, he adopted the motto “Loyalte me Lie” (Loyalty binds me), he was well loved in the north of England where he de facto ruled in his brother’s name. King Edward trusted him enough to name him Lord Protector. He actively had plans in motion to crown his nephew. Why do that only to “usurp” (questionable terminology given that he was petitioned by the lords of the realm to accept the crown and all of this was enshrined in law by the Titulus Regius)?

I do think that Bishop Stillington’s revelation came as a surprise to everyone, including Richard, which is why prior to that point plans were in motion for the coronation of Edward V.

After that, who knows? I don’t agree with those who seek to whitewash the entire thing but I just don’t think it all adds up to the Machiavellian usurper.

What happened to Matilda can and has happened to heirs throughout history. She still placed before Stephen in the succession. Henry I was also only the third monarch since the Norman invasion, and the primogeniture system was very new. It’s not usual - this has happened to one single female heir (and many male heirs have lost their kingdom in battle).

We are talking about centuries later. Princess Charlotte was heir above her father’s numerous brothers, as was Princess Victoria and Princess Elizabeth.

There’s no way to prove it, but I strongly suspect Mary I and Elizabeth I wouldn’t have been subject to Civil War if Henry had had a surviving brother, and I doubt Mary II and Anne would’ve been. Indeed, they skipped their brothers.

Yeah, but it happened most often to the female heirs.
De facto matters more than de jure.

Also, the primogeniture of males system dates from the Romans, so not that new.

Who ruled after that?

Mary II only skipped James III because he was the wrong religion….he had been disinherited for being Catholic.

It’s only happened to one single female heir to the throne of England, 900 years ago. Even then, the succession continued down her line, not Stephen’s.

Primogeniture was introduced to England by William the Conqueror.

Anne, but we are now 200years later- 1707
Point is that in history, women were not suddenly allowed to rule.
There is no way in 1484 that Elizabeth would have been allowed to rule ahead of Richard III
Mary and Elizabeth only barely clung on after little brother Edward VI died as there were no uncles who would have been chosen ahead of them.
It took several back and forths.

History Calling on YouTube did a to the ‘new evidence’ talked about in the PL documentary, which is worth a watch in tandem with the latter. Really interesting to see how things can be massaged and taken out of context if you want to shore up a certain position.

Honestly I think it was done under Richard’s orders or someone who thought they were doing him a favour. At the time of their disappearance Henry Tudor was very much the underdog, and it doesn’t make sense that his mother would have the means to have the two princes knocked off at that stage. And then it still doesn’t solve the issue of what happened to their bodies. Why, if she’d killed them, is there no record of Richard or his supporters, going “where are the boys?!”. The most obvious answer is because they knew rightly.

He might have had a pleasant relationship with his nephews before the death of their father, but power and the fear of losing it makes you do shitty things. If he did give the order, he probably would have been able to reconcile killing them by avoiding further war when the inevitable challenge came a few years down the line (because everyone knew the illegitimacy angle was spurious), and in protecting his own son’s life/inheritance.

More than one female heir has been passed over.
Yes, that’s when it was introduced to England, but it wasn’t a new system.

I know. Nevertheless, the daughters inherited the throne with no civil war returning it to their brothers.

And then we had Princess Charlotte, the small princesses Charlotte and Elizabeth, Princess Victoria, Princess Elizabeth. All of them inheriting (or in line to inherit) unquestionably over their father’s brothers.