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)?

Elizabeth of York was not legitimate when Edward V disappeared.

It’s not true. We still have only one single example of a legitimate female heir, following primogeniture rules, being overlooked in favour of another male member of her family - Matilda and Stephen.

But the Third Sucession Act did not remove the stain of illegitimacy, which is what I said. “Mary and Elizabeth, who had both been declared illegitimateand incapable to inherit, were not restored to legitimacy in the 1543/44 Act; they were only restored to succession of the Crown (with several provisos stipulated in his will of 1547, such as they could not marry without the Privy Council's approval). This meant that the place in the succession of Mary and Elizabeth remained doubtful.”

Rules of primogeniture- illegitimate children still cannot inherit, no matter what a succession act says….

Because Richard III wanted to usurp the throne, so he made her illegitimate. He usurped the throne from her as much as from her brothers.

Yes the brother of a monarch ascended ahead of both the monarch’s sons and his daughters through abuse of the legal system and a bit of murder.

Ok. If you insist on ignoring all the others…

There aren’t any others.

Not one other female heir was overlooked in favour of a male family member. It hasn’t happened.

Richard III usurped the throne of his nephew. His nephew was the King, his other nephew was the heir. Elizabeth was never the heir.

Once the princes were dead and she was legitimised Henry had taken the crown by force, although she did become queen. And yes, Richard had them declared illegitimate, but not because Elizabeth was a female heir waiting to inherit. Her brother was king and she had another brother. Richard’s actions had nothing to do with Elizabeth’s sex or her place in the line of succession.

Elizabeth was Edward IV’s eldest legitimate child until a usurper killed her brothers and made her illegitimate. How was she not the heir, as in second in line after Edward V? Didn’t you say never has the brother of a monarch taken a throne ahead of a daughter of a monarch? That is exactly what happened!

Richard had them ALL declared illegitimate so he could take the throne from ALL of them. To think otherwise is plainly to ignore primogeniture. Elizabeth was ahead of Richard in the line of succession, he had to sideline her in some fashion.

Logicslly speaking, he had no need to kill them as they had already been declared illegitimate and therefore out of the line of succession.

Henry Tudor, on the other hand, needed them to be legitimate so he could strengthen his position by marrying their sister, but not there to take their place on the throne over her…..

Oh my god. Richard usurped Edward’s throne. Edward’s heir was Richard.

Elizabeth was not heir. Richard did not seize her throne. He took the throne from one of them, Edward. The idea that Richard acted in case Edward and Richard both died childless and the female Elizabeth inherited is just daft.

Not one other female heir was overlooked in favour of a male family member.

Lets not forget Lady Jane Stanley, the legitimate heir of Elizabeth I overlooked for James I.

True, but boys become men, and would they have continued to accept they were illegitimate, or attracted an army to mount their claim?

I think the most fascinating part of the modern royal family is that now they can't literally kill each other, they kill each other via news reports and social media. Viva la revolution!

We’ve been through this. Edward Seymour was before her and James’ ancestor was the older sibling of Henry’s. James was the heir, following primogeniture and not Henry’s whims.

Do you know what a line of succession is? Elizabeth was heir after her little brother Richard. Elizabeth and all her sisters were higher up the line of succession than Richard III was…so Richard III had to skip over ALL of them:

Edward IV’s heirs were

1. Edward V
2. Richard (nephew of Richard III)
3. Elizabeth
4. Cecily
5. Anne
6. Catherine
7. Bridget
8. Richard III

He used the bog standard usurping method and have them all declared illegitimate to bring him immediately to the #1 spot.

It’s not at all daft.

Are you taking the piss?

Unable to find any female heir after Matilda who did not take the throne in favour of a male relative, you’ve now taken to argue that Richard III (allegedly) deposed and killed his nephews because Elizabeth was second in line?

Or are you trying to claim that every usurping of a king’s crown is an example of his sister’s being overlooked?

You’re talking rubbish.

This is what you said: Yep, and even the younger brother of a king took precedence over a kings eldest daughter.

They don’t. They haven’t in 900 years. You can’t find a single example post Matilda because there isn’t one. The order of precedence is well established.

Henry VIII’s “whims” were LAW btw. It is law that makes heirs legitimate or illegitimate, and that affects how you apply primogeniture. Henry VIII had declared all descendants of his elder sister Margaret Tudor as illegitimate and barred from succession, because Scotland was an enemy, and Margaret had married the King of Scotland, Margaret was the GGM of James.

This isn’t uncommon, other heirs have been declared illegitimate for being French for example.

Primogeniture (/ˌpraɪməˈdʒɛnɪtʃər, -oʊ-/) is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn legitimate child to inherit the parent's entire or main estate in preference to shared inheritance among all or some children, any illegitimate child or any collateral relative

Laws change. Henry VIII doesn’t dictate law decades after his death.

Either you’ve got an example of a brother of a king ‘taking precedence’ over a daughter, or you haven’t. I’d say you haven’t.

I wasn’t “unable” you just refuse to follow primogeniture and recognise the difference between a usurper declaring heirs before him in the line of succession illegitimate and the rightful monarch declaring heirs after him in the line of succession illegitimate.

You don’t seem to understand a line of succession. You are saying by primogeniture that illegitimate males (James) should inherit before legitimate females (Jane) which is all wrong.

No I am not saying Richard III was only after Elizabeth of York, I am saying, that Richard III, being 8th in line for the throne behind ALL his brother’s children declared them ALL illegitimate, thereby passing over all these male & female heirs to gain the throne.

Yes I said that to another poster and WE were taking about in practice, not by the rules. And then I clarified it for you when you said “that’s not true” by saying “not in practice” and have given multiple examples.

James wasn’t illegitimate ffs.

Not a chance! They would have been smuggled into 15th century France.

You have not given one single example of an uncle taking precedence over a female heir niece. It doesn’t happen.

Well it is clear it has happened. I have given examples of both a brother and a brothers’ son taking precedence over a daughter. I have given further examples of legitimate female heirs being overlooked or declared illegitimate as part of a usurpation by a more distant, often illegitimate male relative. A living mother being overlooked in favour of her son, even though his claim is through her.

Laws change by being rewritten, or abolished. Henry VIII’s law was still in effect, unchanged, at the time of the successions in question. Laws still in effect do endure after the death of the monarch, otherwise we’d be in a pretty lawless country if everything that Elizabeth II gave royal assent to just expired with her death.

Well let’s stop spamming the thread shall we? We have both put forth our cases, let the readers decide.

He was for the English throne FFS

The current lot are German too, aren't they? Direct descendants of Queen Victoria, (who grew up speaking German) and her DH, Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
Which was the royal family's surname before they changed it to Windsor due to the strong anti German sentiment during the first World War.

The wars of the roses (which ended with Bosworth) started due to rival potential claimants to the throne, being descendants of Edward III through an entirely male line, but a younger son of Edward III, and the descendants of an elder son but through a female line.

So primogeniture wasn’t entirely ‘settled’. Otherwise Henry IV would not have been king.