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)?

Nice The Blackadder reference 🤣🤣🤣

Yes, so it was very new when Matilda and Stephen were at war.

Which other English female heir has been passed over?

But if Henry had murdered them, wouldn’t Richard have mentioned it?

This is why I find it bewildering that anyone can believe Richard wasn’t responsible for their deaths. It’s so obvious.

@Ppejfhfhrhhfhf
Take for example, The legitimate and legal heir of Elizabeth I was Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven

Not James of Scotland. But he was a man, so

(Parliament's Third Succession Act granted Henry VIII the right to bequeath the crown in his Will. His Will specified that, in default of heirs to his children, the throne was to pass to the children of the daughters of his younger sister Mary Tudor, Queen of France, bypassing the line of his elder sister Margaret Tudor, represented by the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots. Edward VI confirmed this by letters patent.)

This is the most brilliant thread, thanks OP!

Or not …. Ought to be asleep 😁

Where’s his proof Henry ordered it? He had none, so he executed Buckingham.

No, it wasn’t “very new” to the Normans who brought it with them. They were the ones fighting over succession. 🙄

This is very interesting.

I didn’t know plans were in place for Edward to be crowned. I do find it hard to believe that the monk just suddenly came up with the information though. He’s got to have been put up to it, and the person with most to gain is Richard.

But the personal stuff I do wonder about. Why did Edward IV trust Richard with his sons? Is it a case of power corrupts?

I don't believe that he did. I think political goals in their era leaf their deaths however.

What puzzles me most is the refusal to check if the bones found at the towe of London were theirs. Surely ending speculation if far better for laying them to rest than refusing to have them checked?

As well as Anne Stanley, Lady Jane Grey. Edward VI named her his heir, overriding Henry VIII’s will, and at the time, both Mary I and Elizabeth I were still illegitimate and ineligible for sucession by law.

De facto matters more than de jure.

Anne Stanley was after Edward Seymour, Lord Beauchamp, but Mary was younger than Margaret anyway and Parliament was always going to follow primogeniture over the whims of a monarch who by this point has had three successors already.

Henry VIII was changing the succession every twenty minutes. In the end, they followed the system of primogeniture and went to the descendants of Henry’s eldest sister, not the younger. Both Henry VIII and Edward VI tried to dictate the succession after their deaths, and on both occasions, as Jane Grey found out, the rules of primogeniture were followed - in the latter case replacing a woman with a woman.

Dead monarchs don’t decide the succession. The rules of primogeniture are followed (aside from the cases in which the crown has been taken by force).

In this system, daughters of monarchs come before brothers of monarchs, as seen by princesses throughout history.

The only time primogeniture has not been followed to the detriment of a woman throughout the entire course of English history post 1066 was in the case of Matilda, and even then the line continued with her son becoming king, not the son of her male cousin.

Technically, Henry VII’s mother, Margaret Beaufort should have been Queen ahead of him as his claim to the throne was through her…so she was passed over too.

Not true at all.
And the monarchs were not dead when they changed the laws to determine their succession.

Matilda’s son was named Stephen’s heir through force of arms via the Treaty of Wallingbrook after 19yrs of civil war called the Anarchy. Otherwise Stephen’s eldest son would have been his heir.

So how is that for monarchs not deciding succession! Stephen decided it and overruled primogeniture.

Most likely Richard or his minions.

But we will never know.

Mary I took the crown by force….she was illegitimate when Edward VI died remember?

This just isn’t true on many levels. Henry VII took the crown by force, you can’t then just give it to your mother. Margaret Beauford’s claim was tenuous to say the least. That branch was specifically barred from the succession.

He did not decide it and overrule it. He declared war.

This started with the statement that brothers of a monarch were above daughters in the line of succession. You cannot name a single example of the brother of a monarch ascending the throne above a daughter of a monarch, because there aren’t any examples, because that is not how primogeniture works.

I don’t remember, because it’s not true. Edward attempted to remove her from the line of succession, unsuccessfully. Lady Jane Grey tried to usurp Mary’s crown and was unsuccessful. There is a reason she is not Queen Jane I. She was never queen. Mary was. Because she was the eldest daughter of Henry VIII - and that would’ve been the case even if Henry had had surviving brothers.

You can’t have it both ways, saying dead monarchs can’t decide succession when I mention a branch is barred from succession by Henry VIII and then admitting that it can be done by mentioning another branch barred from succession.

Henry VII’s claim to the throne was through Margaret, so she had a stronger claim than he did. But no one would fight to put a woman on the throne would they?

No, you don’t remember because you don’t know the history.

Edward VI didn’t try to remove Mary I from succession, his father Henry VIII had already done that by declaring Mary and Elizabeth to be illegitimate in the Third Sucession Act.

per Edward VI’s Device for the Sucession, Lady Jane Grey was his legitimate heir as he excluded his half-sisters for being illegitimate. Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed Queen. Within days, Mary I contested the throne and won Parliament to her side, they tore up Edward’s Device for Sucession and Jane Grey was declared a usurper. It was a coup Mary did. And Jane lost her head as did others.

Mary Queen of Scots might dispute that.

Neither of them had a strong claim. The branch wasn’t legitimate, and was only legitimised on the understanding it was barred from the succession. Henry VII won the crown through battle.

Lady Jane Grey, Anne Stanley etc. were never the direct heirs to the throne. Primogeniture always landed on another.

The Monarch
His/her sons
His/her daughters
His (oldest) brothers
His brothers’ children
His brothers’ grandchildren and descendants
His/her sisters
His/her sisters’ children
His/her sisters’ grandchildren and descendants
His/her uncles
His/her uncles’ descendants
His/her aunts
His/her aunts’ descendants

Then great uncles and descendants, then great aunts and descants, then great great uncles’ descendants until there’s a living heir. Unless someone stabs you on the battlefield, beats your army and seizes your throne, or your uncle poisons you.

Aside from when the throne has been taken by force or when catholics were barred, the above is what has always been followed since Matilda.

Respectfully, it isn’t me who doesn’t know the history. The Third Succession Act restored Mary and Elizabeth to the line of succession.

Edward wrote a will near the end of his life attempting to subvert the Third Succession Act. The eldest daughter of Henry VIII was always going to win that battle, because it is overwhelming that her claim was the legitimate one. And poor Jane Grey suffered for the stupidity of men.

Stephen I was a nephew- son of the deceased brother, usurped throne from Matilda daughter and legitimate heir of Henry I

Richard III- after the princes disappeared/died rule should have gone from him as Lord Protector to Elizabeth of York, eldest daughter of Edward IV with no surviving brothers- so he, her uncle, brother of Edward IV usurped the throne from her too.

Henry VII- legitimate heir of Edward IV was Elizabeth of York. Henry VII was a distant cousin of Edward IV. He usurped it from her by forcing her to marry him.

“This started with the statement that brothers of a monarch were above daughters in the line of succession.”
No it did not. This started with a statement that in practice, daughters were usually passed over or sidelined in favour of another male relative. The rules were often ignored when on the rare occaision the only surviving legitimate heir of a monarch was female. And that is true.